index


page 1 page 2 page 3

Wilkins / Olmstead Newsgroup Discussion 1

The following is a discussion of Lee Oswald's early discharge from the Marines, taken from the newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk

next


From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 10 Oct 2004 15:05:47 -0400


[..]

The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of 17 August 1959",
made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".

The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald except in general terms, the
request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a "dependent", since her July request for
dependency. The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency considering that the funds she will
recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently alleviate this situation".

The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from Oswald, while he is in
service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from Oswald, nor does he have a job
waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is still in service. If Oswald
continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
$131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her listed expenses.

Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement. Some of the data supplied to
Poindexter is false. First consideration:

"a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"

The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically listed in his service
record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military obligation is over. It is
based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this enlistment date later).

The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23 October, 1959, only 65
days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less then 45 days of
service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the application......outside of
the 90 day window.

The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D allotment" of $40
of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was money send by
Oswald out of his pay.

Moving on........

The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26 August, 1959 both being approved.

The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict of the record. It shows Oswald's
ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty". Which is one day prior to the
8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for release according to
regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".

All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key documents of the supporting evidence to
show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after September when the discharge
was given.

More to follow

jko



From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
..[]

Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
following September.

This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
factory).

Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
(concerning, as we shallsee, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
visit to the US.

Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
directions to each other's country's.

In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
'cooperation'.

In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
USSR.


::Clark::




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 11 Oct 2004 21:40:55 -0400
#[..]
>
>
>
> Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> following September.

Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
debate, starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly suspect
that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of staying
in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented from
staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the fall
of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the right
individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started, 1
June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started 20,
July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection plan.....things
had to start no later then May, 1959. I believe that things started
before 20 February, 1959. The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
"made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
Oswald.

>
> This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
> first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
> and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
> his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
> the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
> Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
> promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
> television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
> factory).

The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.

>
> Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
> (concerning, as we shallsee, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
> visit to the US.

These exchanges would still take some time to reach the point Oswald comes
into play.......but the plans are progressing. Lee would not be needed
until all of certain private talks were finalized......he did however have
to be on his way.

>
> Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
> directions to each other's country's.

But the agreements have not yet been finalized.

>
> In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> 'cooperation'.
>

There was more to this.......Project TP is the prime consideration of
where Lee fits in with this "cooperation".


> In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> USSR.
>

Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even though
he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days were
up. Things had to change during that first week......for some reason Lee
was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee. For
example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
meetings.

jko

>
> ::Clark::
>
>
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 11 Oct 2004 22:01:06 -0400


[..]


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of 17
> August 1959",
> > made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for
> "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
> >
> > The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald except
in
> general terms, the
> > request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a "dependent",
> since her July request for
> > dependency.

Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
Correct?


> > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> takecare of Mrs. Oswald.

John Pic was also able to send money.

> > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> considering that the funds she will
> > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently alleviate
this
> situation".

Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
But he didn't.

> >
> > The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from
Oswald,
> while he is in
> > service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from Oswald,
> nor does he have a job
> > waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is
still
> in service.

Actually there may be irony in Oswald's lack of concern for his mother but
I think even the LNer's will agree that Lee's early discharge request was
to speed up his entry into the USSR and not to help his mother.

If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR is
timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.

And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.

He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.


> > If Oswald
> > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
listed
> expenses.

And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.


> >
> > Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement. Some
of
> the data supplied to
> > Poindexter is false. First consideration:
> >
> > "a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
> >
> > The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically listed
> in his service
> > record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military obligation
is
> over. It is
> > based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this
> enlistment date later).

The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking a
thirty day early discharge.


> >
> > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23 October,
> 1959, only 65
> > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
then
> 45 days of
> > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the application......outside
of
> > the 90 day window.

What is the "90 day window"?

> >
> > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D allotment"
> of $40
> > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was money
> send by
> > Oswald out of his pay.

On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
Included with it was the following:

1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen 20
Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is addressed
"To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:

2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to inform
anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.

3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
Gladys Johnson, NP

4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
Ima Hamilton, NP

5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
Gladys Johnson, NP

6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the form
needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it out
on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.

The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who recommended
approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.


> >
> > Moving on........

The overlooked conclusion is that Lee and his mother had been working
together since July 20 to put together this August 17 application.
Because, otherwise, the affidavits she collected were unnecessary to Lee
filing

None of the previous letters and affidavits were required for his 20 July,
1959 Request for a Allowance for Dependents. Therefore, there was never
any plan to send her money. The July 20 request was meant as a first
necessary step for the August 17 request.



> >
> > The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26 August,
> 1959 both being approved.
> >
> > The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict of
the
> record. It shows Oswald's
> > ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty".
Which
> is one day prior to the
> > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
release
> according to
> > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".

Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.

> >
> > All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key documents of
> the supporting evidence to
> > show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after
> September when the discharge
> > was given.

???
I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.


> >
> > More to follow
> >
> > jko
>
>
>
> Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> following September.
>
> This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
> first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
> and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
> his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
> the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
> Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
> promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
> television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
> factory).
>
> Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
> (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
> visit to the US.
>
> Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
> directions to each other's country's.
>
> In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> 'cooperation'.
>
> In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> USSR.

>From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency discharge
did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait. Wait
for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.

If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.

Word was sent back that Lee had to have his request for Soviet citizenship
in place BEFORE the US delegation arrived in Moscow in December. This
requires (in theory) someone on the Soviet side was "expecting" Lee's
arrival and "defection". This "someone" advised that Lee's admittance was
going to be unavoidably "held up" and that the delegation's offer to share
technology would be "put on ice" and made to wait until the holdup could
be removed. The USG decision would now have had to be made whether the
December delegation was to be left, sitting on ice, in Moscow - waiting
for their "deal" involving Oswald to be approved - or if it simply
wouldn't be easier to get Oswald to Moscow earlier - And have him "sit on
ice" instead of the delegation while the Soviets cleared the "red tape"
for his admission ?

If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the USG
and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
early discharge from the USMC.

The record shows Lee did just that - And accelerated his planned timetable
for leaving the USA.

We can see that Lee originally planned to enter the USSR after his
scheduled December 8, 1959 discharge by his 3/19/59 application to attend
Albert Schweitzer College from April 12, 1960 to June 27, 1960.

That the USMC hurried Lee's dependency discharge app is demonstrated by
it's being acted on by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Poindexter) just two days
after submission - and that a second approval was given on August 24 -
Both before it was determined if John Pic was making a "Q" allotment to
his mother (Which he was not). Two days later, a review board was
recommended to be formed to rule - which took place THE VERY NEXT DAY - On
August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
the response to the Pic letter.

The review board was missing the following required information:

3 September, 1959 Dr. Howard's letter

4 September, 1959 Mrs. Oswald's letter providing the required statement of
Mrs. Oswald's income and expenses not submitted to the board. (This letter
shows income.....not reported in the 7 Aug, 1959 "Q" allotment form
submitted.)

4 Sept, 1959 AF letter on John Pic showing no "Q" allotment on this son.

4 Sept, 1959 Dr. Kleuser letter

Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.


BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a 9/02/2001
post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.


::Clark::



From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 11 Oct 2004 22:03:53 -0400


[..]

How the dependency discharge became the "Hardship" discharge.

This element of Oswald's background is critical.

To catch some up, in 1959 a wittness, that knew the individual for a
period of at least two years, had to sign a passport application, there
was nobody Lee could have sign and verify Oswald was who he indicated he
was......so he had the USMC verify....and since Lt. Ayers was the
personnel officer handling Lee's seperation, he was the wittness.

On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be "the
wittness" for Lee's passport, dropped the "dependency" and replaced the
grounds as "hardship" simple and without question......since he was the
last man in the chain at that duty station. Those who were connected to
the discharge board were no longer involved. He is the only one in
position to act "By direction".

Lee was seperated the day before on the 11th, he was gone, the Service
Record would go forward and now Lee Harvey Oswald, would NOT BE recalled
to active duty because he had been seperated by a "Hardship Discharge".
He would NOT BE assigned to any USMCR unit.

However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September, 1959 in
the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made.......in
processing Lee's records they went to the "Ready Reserve"
section.....which meant he could be recalled to AD at anytime up to the
age of 35. Now the issue becomes cloudy.......was Lee discharged for a
hardship to take care of his mother or discharged to be recalled at any
time after 11 September, 1959? Considering the events that followed, Lee
was discharged from his assignment on active duty in the USMC to a new
assignment in the USMCR. Under the law Lee could have been seperated and
placed on "detail" for 120 to 180 days on a special
assignment......normally called a "Presidential Detail", which can cover a
number of tasks, where "one individual" is needed.

The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald, clearly
support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.......not as a
"Marxist Marine" bored with taking care of his mother, without a job, with
no money and no future. He could not reach this point on his own.

I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied them to
what actually took place.

jko



From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 12 Oct 2004 00:56:46 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mm2kh6dfn699b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of 17
> > August 1959",
> > > made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for
> > "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
> > >
> > > The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald except
> in
> > general terms, the
> > > request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a "dependent",
> > since her July request for
> > > dependency.
>
> Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
> Correct?

the paper work actually starts 1 June to list Mrs. Oswald as a dependent.
The request for the "Q" allotment starts 20 July, made by Oswald. She did
not fill out the paper work, Lee did.....however it is her
request........wording issue.

>
>
> > > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> > takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
>
> John Pic was also able to send money.

Although higher rank he had a family to support in Japan.

>
> > > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> > considering that the funds she will
> > > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently alleviate
> this
> > situation".
>
> Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
> But he didn't.

So could have Robert......but neither were "asked" ? or involved.

>
> > >
> > > The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from
> Oswald,
> > while he is in
> > > service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from Oswald,
> > nor does he have a job
> > > waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is
> still
> > in service.
>
> Actually there may be irony in Oswald's lack of concern for his mother but
> I think even the LNer's will agree that Lee's early discharge request was
> to speed up his entry into the USSR and not to help his mother.

they don't agree with much outside of the WCR.

>
> If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
> that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR is
> timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
>
> And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
> December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
>
> He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.

Actually I believe he was kept buzy......but that's for later.
>
>
> > > If Oswald
> > > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
> listed
> > expenses.
>
> And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.
>

And if Robert kicked in or Lee took money out of his "savings" the
discharge was not needed.

>
> > >
> > > Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement. Some
> of
> > the data supplied to
> > > Poindexter is false. First consideration:
> > >
> > > "a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
> > >
> > > The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically listed
> > in his service
> > > record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military obligation
> is
> > over. It is
> > > based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this
> > enlistment date later).
>
> The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking a
> thirty day early discharge.
>

Yes, that's the basic consideration.

>
> > >
> > > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23 October,
> > 1959, only 65
> > > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
> then
> > 45 days of
> > > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> > however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the application......outside
> of
> > > the 90 day window.
>
> What is the "90 day window"?
>

The law allows these types of early discharges up to 90 days prior to
ETS..not 91, 92, etc days before ETS. It can be less then 90 days but not
more then.

> > >
> > > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D allotment"
> > of $40
> > > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was money
> > send by
> > > Oswald out of his pay.
>

The following is data that was obtained but not forwarded to Poindexter


> On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
> Included with it was the following:
>
> 1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen 20
> Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is addressed
> "To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:
>
> 2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to inform
> anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
> Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
>
> 3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
> Gladys Johnson, NP
>
> 4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
> Ima Hamilton, NP
>
> 5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
> Gladys Johnson, NP
>
> 6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
> informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the form
> needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it out
> on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
>
> The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who recommended
> approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
> after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
>

Only the "D" Allotment was submitted to Poindexter. All of the above were
not "included" in the "Service Record" nor were they the required
information or evidence required. They were obtained before Mrs. Oswald
recieved the 31 July, 1959 letter of instructions listing the evidence in
support needed. The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959. On 24 August
she was informed she needed to provide additional information which was
not submitted until 4 September. Dr. Howards letter was dated Sept 3,
1959, and another dated 4 Sept.


> > >
> > > Moving on........
>
> The overlooked conclusion is that Lee and his mother had been working
> together since July 20 to put together this August 17 application.
> Because, otherwise, the affidavits she collected were unnecessary to Lee
> filing
>
> None of the previous letters and affidavits were required for his 20 July,
> 1959 Request for a Allowance for Dependents. Therefore, there was never
> any plan to send her money. The July 20 request was meant as a first
> necessary step for the August 17 request.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26 August,
> > 1959 both being approved.
> > >
> > > The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict of
> the
> > record. It shows Oswald's
> > > ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty".
> Which
> > is one day prior to the
> > > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
> release
> > according to
> > > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
>
> Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.

It was pre-approved "By direction".

>
> > >
> > > All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key documents of
> > the supporting evidence to
> > > show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after
> > September when the discharge
> > > was given.
>
> ???
> I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.

The "key documents of the supporting evidence" were not summited until
after 4 September, 1959. None of the July letters were of any value.


>
>
> > >
> > > More to follow
> > >
> > > jko
> >
> >
> >
> > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > following September.
> >
> > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
> > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
> > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
> > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
> > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
> > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
> > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
> > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
> > factory).
> >
> > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
> > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
> > visit to the US.
> >
> > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
> > directions to each other's country's.
> >
> > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > 'cooperation'.
> >
> > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> > USSR.
>
> >From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency discharge
> did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
> Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait. Wait
> for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
> trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
> intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
> would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
> granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.

The above is a consideration, however not the best, the ""one year visa"
was not part of any consideration prior to Lee arriving......at least not
in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the boarder. He
only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed it off.

>
> If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
> coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
> to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
> discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
> December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
> technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
> earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.

Lee could have bought a round trip ticket from L.A. or N.Y.C. for $30.00
on the new fly now pay later plan being pushed by TWA. and left at any
time. There was a purpose behind the boat trip. He would have only had
to travel about 24 hours, by flying and screwed the airlines......if he
was as presented.


>
> Word was sent back that Lee had to have his request for Soviet citizenship
> in place BEFORE the US delegation arrived in Moscow in December. This
> requires (in theory) someone on the Soviet side was "expecting" Lee's
> arrival and "defection". This "someone" advised that Lee's admittance was
> going to be unavoidably "held up" and that the delegation's offer to share
> technology would be "put on ice" and made to wait until the holdup could
> be removed. The USG decision would now have had to be made whether the
> December delegation was to be left, sitting on ice, in Moscow - waiting
> for their "deal" involving Oswald to be approved - or if it simply
> wouldn't be easier to get Oswald to Moscow earlier - And have him "sit on
> ice" instead of the delegation while the Soviets cleared the "red tape"
> for his admission ?
>

Synder was aware of Oswald.......I've mention the "address" issue in the
past, you can take it that I don't want to add it to this thread. A
member of the Supreme Soviet.....was prepared to "take care of Lee" I've
mentioned her as well in the past.


> If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the USG
> and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
> early discharge from the USMC.
>

This is one of the areas where we agree on one point but disagree on
another. Both the USG and the USSR expected the "defection". It could not
have happened without the support of both.

> The record shows Lee did just that - And accelerated his planned timetable
> for leaving the USA.
>
> We can see that Lee originally planned to enter the USSR after his
> scheduled December 8, 1959 discharge by his 3/19/59 application to attend
> Albert Schweitzer College from April 12, 1960 to June 27, 1960.
>
> That the USMC hurried Lee's dependency discharge app is demonstrated by
> it's being acted on by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Poindexter) just two days
> after submission - and that a second approval was given on August 24 -
> Both before it was determined if John Pic was making a "Q" allotment to
> his mother (Which he was not). Two days later, a review board was
> recommended to be formed to rule - which took place THE VERY NEXT DAY - On
> August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
> the response to the Pic letter.
>

The Pic data came in on 4 September, 1959


> The review board was missing the following required information:
>
> 3 September, 1959 Dr. Howard's letter
>
> 4 September, 1959 Mrs. Oswald's letter providing the required statement of
> Mrs. Oswald's income and expenses not submitted to the board. (This letter
> shows income.....not reported in the 7 Aug, 1959 "Q" allotment form
> submitted.)
>
> 4 Sept, 1959 AF letter on John Pic showing no "Q" allotment on this son.
>
> 4 Sept, 1959 Dr. Kleuser letter
>
> Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
>

These are the "key documents" I mentioned above

>
> BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a 9/02/2001
> post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
> the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
>
>

That's the area we disagree on......but that's ok at this time. I'm not
sure many can handle the full details all at one time.

jko



From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 12 Oct 2004 21:06:37 -0400



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416addc8@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
[..]


> >
> > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > following September.
>
> Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
> debate,

Correct.

>starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
> him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly suspect
> that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of staying
> in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented from
> staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the fall
> of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the right
> individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started, 1
> June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started 20,
> July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection plan.....things
> had to start no later then May, 1959.

For early discharge - Yes.
But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.

Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain an
early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.

> I believe that things started
> before 20 February, 1959.

Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?

> The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
> "made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
> Oswald.
>
> >
> > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington,
the
> > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
threat
> > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
declared
> > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
negotiate
> > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some
60
> > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested
in
> > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
used
> > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
radio
> > factory).
>
> The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.

I didn't know that.

>
> >
> > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
ideas
> > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
reciprocal
> > visit to the US.
>
> These exchanges would still take some time to reach the point Oswald comes
> into play.......but the plans are progressing. Lee would not be needed
> until all of certain private talks were finalized......he did however have
> to be on his way.

And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to Nixon's
offer to "share ideas", officially presented in December, 1959.

>
> >
> > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
opposite
> > directions to each other's country's.
>
> But the agreements have not yet been finalized.

Agreed.

One would expect that this was the subject of Krushev's visit to Iowa
State University - It seems the "sharing of ideas" Kruschev had in mind
dealt with agriculture Krushev was himself a Minister of Agriculture under
Stalin until replaced in 1951 and had experienced a famine for which he
was critisized by Stalin..



>
> >
> > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > 'cooperation'.
> >
>
> There was more to this.......Project TP is the prime consideration of
> where Lee fits in with this "cooperation".

"TP"?

>
>
> > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> > USSR.
> >
>
> Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even though
> he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days were
> up. Things had to change during that first week......

I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to take a
Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip. Further,
his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to send a
"message" concerning his status and where he was headed.


>for some reason Lee
> was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee. For
> example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
> meetings.

I thought he wasn't interested in attending?


::Clark::



From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 12 Oct 2004 22:43:36 -0400


"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416b562d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mm2kh6dfn699b@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of
17
> > > August 1959",
> > > > made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for
> > > "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
> > > >
> > > > The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald
except
> > in
> > > general terms, the
> > > > request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a
"dependent",
> > > since her July request for
> > > > dependency.
> >
> > Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
> > Correct?
>
> the paper work actually starts 1 June to list Mrs. Oswald as a dependent.
> The request for the "Q" allotment starts 20 July, made by Oswald. She did
> not fill out the paper work, Lee did.....however it is her
> request........wording issue.
>

This process appears to be timed to meet a September 8 discharge - the 90
day window you mentioned below.


> >
> >
> > > > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> > > takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
> >
> > John Pic was also able to send money.
>
> Although higher rank he had a family to support in Japan.
>
> >
> > > > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> > > considering that the funds she will
> > > > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently
alleviate
> > this
> > > situation".
> >
> > Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
> > But he didn't.
>
> So could have Robert......but neither were "asked" ? or involved.
>

Yes. Lee has asked his mother to ask him.
When was his mother's "accident"?

> >
> > > >
> > > > The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from
> > Oswald,
> > > while he is in
> > > > service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from
Oswald,
> > > nor does he have a job
> > > > waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is
> > still
> > > in service.
> >
> > Actually there may be irony in Oswald's lack of concern for his mother
but
> > I think even the LNer's will agree that Lee's early discharge request
was
> > to speed up his entry into the USSR and not to help his mother.
>
> they don't agree with much outside of the WCR.
>
> >
> > If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
> > that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR
is
> > timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
> >
> > And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
> > December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
> >
> > He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.
>
> Actually I believe he was kept buzy......but that's for later.

According to him, he was studying Russian.


> >
> >
> > > > If Oswald
> > > > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > > > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
> > listed
> > > expenses.
> >
> > And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.
> >
>
> And if Robert kicked in or Lee took money out of his "savings" the
> discharge was not needed.
>

Yes. Lee's early discharge request was phoney. You and I have seen through
it in 48 hours. Yet the USMC doesn't see through it at all - not in 1959
and not in 1962. And over four people looked at it.


> >
> > > >
> > > > Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement.
Some
> > of
> > > the data supplied to
> > > > Poindexter is false. First consideration:
> > > >
> > > > "a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
> > > >
> > > > The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically
listed
> > > in his service
> > > > record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military
obligation
> > is
> > > over. It is
> > > > based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this
> > > enlistment date later).
> >
> > The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking
a
> > thirty day early discharge.
> >
>
> Yes, that's the basic consideration.
>

If this "mistake" wasn't made, Lee would be subject to the 90 day ruled
you cite below.

> >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23
October,
> > > 1959, only 65
> > > > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
> > then
> > > 45 days of
> > > > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> > > however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > > > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the
application......outside
> > of
> > > > the 90 day window.
> >
> > What is the "90 day window"?
> >
>
> The law allows these types of early discharges up to 90 days prior to
> ETS..not 91, 92, etc days before ETS. It can be less then 90 days but not
> more then.
>

That would correspond to about September 8, 1959.
Looks like somebody knew the rule.

> > > >
> > > > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D
allotment"
> > > of $40
> > > > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was
money
> > > send by
> > > > Oswald out of his pay.
> >
>
> The following is data that was obtained but not forwarded to Poindexter
>
>
> > On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
> > Included with it was the following:
> >
> > 1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen
20
> > Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is
addressed
> > "To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:
> >
> > 2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to
inform
> > anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
> > Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
> >
> > 3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
> > Gladys Johnson, NP
> >
> > 4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
> > Ima Hamilton, NP
> >
> > 5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
> > Gladys Johnson, NP
> >
> > 6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
> > informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the
form
> > needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it
out
> > on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
> >
> > The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who
recommended
> > approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
> > after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
> >
>
> Only the "D" Allotment was submitted to Poindexter.


Poindexter made his decision based on just the "D" allotment? Isn't that
meaingless?


> All of the above were
> not "included" in the "Service Record" nor were they the required
> information or evidence required. They were obtained before Mrs. Oswald
> recieved the 31 July, 1959 letter of instructions listing the evidence in
> support needed.

So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?

Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.

It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected interference.

He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a review
board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer of
August 24 was bypassed.

Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).

> The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959. On 24 August
> she was informed she needed to provide additional information which was
> not submitted until 4 September. Dr. Howards letter was dated Sept 3,
> 1959, and another dated 4 Sept.
>

But the officer requesting said info has already been overruled in making
it before the additional information even arrived.

>
> > > >
> > > > Moving on........
> >
> > The overlooked conclusion is that Lee and his mother had been working
> > together since July 20 to put together this August 17 application.
> > Because, otherwise, the affidavits she collected were unnecessary to Lee
> > filing
> >
> > None of the previous letters and affidavits were required for his 20
July,
> > 1959 Request for a Allowance for Dependents. Therefore, there was never
> > any plan to send her money. The July 20 request was meant as a first
> > necessary step for the August 17 request.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26
August,
> > > 1959 both being approved.
> > > >
> > > > The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict
of
> > the
> > > record. It shows Oswald's
> > > > ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty".
> > Which
> > > is one day prior to the
> > > > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
> > release
> > > according to
> > > > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
> >
> > Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.
>
> It was pre-approved "By direction".
>

And from above...at least as high as Poindexter. The one attempt to slow
the process down by requesting more info was ignored.

No delays could be tolerated - even for two weeks.

> >
> > > >
> > > > All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key
documents of
> > > the supporting evidence to
> > > > show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after
> > > September when the discharge
> > > > was given.
> >
> > ???
> > I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.
>
> The "key documents of the supporting evidence" were not summited until
> after 4 September, 1959. None of the July letters were of any value.
>

How close did the July letters come to meeting the requirements of the
September letters? I would anticipate they must have come close - as some
of them come from the same people.

If they come close, it suggests that Lee had insight as to what would be
requested on August 24.


>
> >
> >

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > > following September.
> > >
> > > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington,
the
> > > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
threat
> > > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
declared
> > > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
negotiate
> > > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some
60
> > > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was
interested in
> > > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
used
> > > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
radio
> > > factory).
> > >
> > > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
ideas
> > > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
reciprocal
> > > visit to the US.
> > >
> > > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
opposite
> > > directions to each other's country's.
> > >
> > > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > > 'cooperation'.
> > >
> > > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to
the
> > > USSR.
> >
> > >From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency
discharge
> > did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
> > Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait.
Wait
> > for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
> > trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
> > intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
> > would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
> > granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.
>
> The above is a consideration, however not the best, the ""one year visa"
> was not part of any consideration prior to Lee arriving......at least not
> in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the boarder. He
> only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed it off.
>

Would this be the "free sharing of ideas" Nixon spoke of?

In my consideration, Lee is, at all points in time, attempting to enter
the USSR (He only has funds for a "one way" trip) and the Russians are
expecting him. Otherwise, they simply would have removed his access to
razor blades and walked him to the nearest border. The Russians should
have done exactly the opposite of what they did when Lee attempted
suicide.

IMO, there is an argument going on, inside the highest offices of the USSR
on whether to let him in or not, with Krushev in favor and his opponents
against. The arguments "against" required Lee's early (pre December)
arrival in the USSR in order to wait for them to be overcome.

My conclusion is that Lee is part of the "free exchange of ideas" deal
made with the USSR in December,1959. Yet neither side could admit to Lee's
role. On the US side, no one wants to admit that they gave the USSR
American technology (possibly agriculture related from Iowa State
University) and so a "defector" offers it, on the USSR side, no one wants
to admit that they just allowed an American observor into their country
(As evidenced by Lee's "The Kollective") in exchange for it. Opposition to
Oswald's entry, had to be eliminated on the Soviet side by December, 1959
if it was to correspond to the US offer to "share ideas" made that same
month. If Oswald was not admitted in December, 1959, the US offer to
"share ideas" would have been withdrawn by the December delegation. The
Russians needed more time to get Lee cleared by December, 1959 - and
requested the wheels for the trade be set in motion before December, 1959
- necessitating Oswald's early discharge.

Poindexter will now personally see to it that Private Oswald's early
discharge is approved, brushing aside the Aug 24 request for more
information, and getting Lee out on the earliest possible date that still
fit within the 90 day "window".

Lee now heads over early and sits on ice at his Moscow hotel waiting for
the December, 1959 deal to take place.

Lee sent a message, twice, to the US in December, 1959, stating not only
that he had successfully gotten in, but where he was going.

Lee's finances show he brought the exact amount of money needed to stay in
the USSR into December, 1959. I don't think this is coincidence.

> >
> > If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
> > coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
> > to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
> > discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
> > December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
> > technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
> > earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.
>
> Lee could have bought a round trip ticket from L.A. or N.Y.C. for $30.00
> on the new fly now pay later plan being pushed by TWA. and left at any
> time. There was a purpose behind the boat trip. He would have only had
> to travel about 24 hours, by flying and screwed the airlines......if he
> was as presented.

I think trans-Atlantic air travel was very, very expensive in 1959,
although the USG certainly could have afforded to pay his airfare. I don't
know why they didn't. I can see why they didn't let him take a military
flight - a rather embarrassing eans for a planned "defector" to reach the
USSR if revealed.

I see Lee as being put on a budget and given a destination.


>
>
> >
> > Word was sent back that Lee had to have his request for Soviet
citizenship
> > in place BEFORE the US delegation arrived in Moscow in December. This
> > requires (in theory) someone on the Soviet side was "expecting" Lee's
> > arrival and "defection". This "someone" advised that Lee's admittance
was
> > going to be unavoidably "held up" and that the delegation's offer to
share
> > technology would be "put on ice" and made to wait until the holdup could
> > be removed. The USG decision would now have had to be made whether the
> > December delegation was to be left, sitting on ice, in Moscow - waiting
> > for their "deal" involving Oswald to be approved - or if it simply
> > wouldn't be easier to get Oswald to Moscow earlier - And have him "sit
on
> > ice" instead of the delegation while the Soviets cleared the "red tape"
> > for his admission ?
> >
>
> Synder was aware of Oswald.......I've mention the "address" issue in the
> past, you can take it that I don't want to add it to this thread. A
> member of the Supreme Soviet.....was prepared to "take care of Lee" I've
> mentioned her as well in the past.

Yes. And approval for Lee to stay in the USSR came from the "Supreme
Soviet". In addition to "her" (Who couldn't be closer or more trusted to
Krushev) I have also traced Leo Setyaev as being a participant to Lee's
entry into the USSR and, later, his exit - on the Soviet side of the deal.

Without these two, Lee would have been escorted to the nearest border and
dumped.


>
>
> > If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the
USG
> > and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
> > early discharge from the USMC.
> >
>
> This is one of the areas where we agree on one point but disagree on
> another. Both the USG and the USSR expected the "defection". It could not
> have happened without the support of both.

Absolutely. On the US side we have pointed to Poindexter's participation
and Snyder's participation is far more provable than Poindexter's. Snyder
left a path to follow a mile wide behind himself.


>
> > The record shows Lee did just that - And accelerated his planned
timetable
> > for leaving the USA.
> >
> > We can see that Lee originally planned to enter the USSR after his
> > scheduled December 8, 1959 discharge by his 3/19/59 application to
attend
> > Albert Schweitzer College from April 12, 1960 to June 27, 1960.
> >
> > That the USMC hurried Lee's dependency discharge app is demonstrated by
> > it's being acted on by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Poindexter) just two days
> > after submission - and that a second approval was given on August 24 -
> > Both before it was determined if John Pic was making a "Q" allotment to
> > his mother (Which he was not). Two days later, a review board was
> > recommended to be formed to rule - which took place THE VERY NEXT DAY -
On
> > August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
> > the response to the Pic letter.
> >
>
> The Pic data came in on 4 September, 1959
>

And, when considered necessary information on Aug 24, was no longer
considered necessary on Aug 27 - A period of just THREE DAYS!

The USMC did everything it had to do to get LHO out of the service, 90
days early. And successfully accomplished same.

>
> > The review board was missing the following required information:
> >
> > 3 September, 1959 Dr. Howard's letter
> >
> > 4 September, 1959 Mrs. Oswald's letter providing the required statement
of
> > Mrs. Oswald's income and expenses not submitted to the board. (This
letter
> > shows income.....not reported in the 7 Aug, 1959 "Q" allotment form
> > submitted.)
> >
> > 4 Sept, 1959 AF letter on John Pic showing no "Q" allotment on this son.
> >
> > 4 Sept, 1959 Dr. Kleuser letter
> >
> > Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
> >
>
> These are the "key documents" I mentioned above
>

Lee was drummed out on orders from above. He then wasted no time in
heading for the USSR where Snyder was waiting for his arrival...


> >
> > BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a
9/02/2001
> > post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
> > the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
> >
> >
>
> That's the area we disagree on......but that's ok at this time. I'm not
> sure many can handle the full details all at one time.
>
> jko


Looking forward to hearing what operation you identify Lee as being
involved in.


For lurkers, JKO and I have reached similar (although not identical)
conclusions using separate evidence. Due to the fact that we use separate
evidence and due to differences of how we often view the same evidence, we
don't always agree on the conclusions drawn (In fact, that's a rare
occassion). What we did find was that the presented history of LHO is
incorrect. Regardless of what you believe happened on 11/22/63, the idea
that Oswald was acting "on his own" when he entered the US embassy in
Moscow is flat out contradicted by the evidence.

We do not simply rely on "Poindexter approving Oswald's discharge" as the
basis for our case. That connection is admittedly flimsy taken by itself.
We had to start somewhere and JKO had posted on Oswald's discharge and
this is where I happened to jump in. Poindexter's participation aside, we
have shown that Lee's early discharge was aided by his superiors, who
removed all obstacles for additional requested information which might
slow down his discharge, with the result being that Lee obtained the
earlest possible release from the USMC.

For Lee's part, we can see that his plan to obtain an early discharge
originated sometime between March 19, 1959 and June 1, 1959 (Probably May
IMO) and that he knew ALL the steps in the required process, beginning
with his d eclaringhismotheradependentonJune1,1959.

It will be interesting to see if JKO can demonstrate a link between the
affidavits Lee collected in July and those requested in August.



::Clark::


From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 13 Oct 2004 10:12:59 -0400


Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mojs8qq0e010@corp.supernews.com...


> > >
> > > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > > following September.
> >
> > Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
> > debate,
>
> Correct.
>
> >starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
> > him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly suspect
> > that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of staying
> > in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented from
> > staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the fall
> > of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the right
> > individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started, 1
> > June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started 20,
> > July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection plan.....things
> > had to start no later then May, 1959.
>
> For early discharge - Yes.
> But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
> indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.

The school issue and all the retated connections is where Greg's work comes in.
Because of the quality of his research, I don't get into the details in depth. His
connections are in my opinion of interest and need to be explored in greater detail.


>
> Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain an
> early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.
>
> > I believe that things started
> > before 20 February, 1959.
>
> Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?

It is around this time......off hand I'm not sure exactly....but could look it up.

>
> > The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
> > "made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
> > Oswald.
> >
> > >
> > > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington,
> the
> > > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
> threat
> > > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
> declared
> > > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
> negotiate
> > > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some
> 60
> > > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested
> in
> > > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
> used
> > > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
> radio
> > > factory).
> >
> > The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.
>
> I didn't know that.
>

The CIA did and the plant production was of interest. The U.S. military was also
interested in Minsk. The Soviets followed the German production plan.....but after
the war. The plan can best be understood by reading "Why England Slept" by JFK.

> >
> > >
> > > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
> ideas
> > > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
> reciprocal
> > > visit to the US.
> >
> > These exchanges would still take some time to reach the point Oswald comes
> > into play.......but the plans are progressing. Lee would not be needed
> > until all of certain private talks were finalized......he did however have
> > to be on his way.
>
> And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to Nixon's
> offer to "share ideas", officially presented in December, 1959.
>

I believe that the ground work was already a done deal. I believe this 'handshake"
treaty was worked out during the Nixon/Niki "boat ride". Nixon did far more then
people knew in Ike's admin. In fact Ike admitted it during a press conf...but that
comment was used "against" him in the election. Ike was asked about some of the
greatest things that Nixon did as VP......Ike said "I'd have to think about it"....(roughly)
The press took this to mean Ike could not think of anything great Nixon did, but in
truth he meant he would have to think about what he could actually say.....that was
not "classified" or that Nixon ran things, while Ike was ill. It might have cost Nixon
the election.

> >
> > >
> > > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
> opposite
> > > directions to each other's country's.
> >
> > But the agreements have not yet been finalized.
>
> Agreed.

Lee's departure however was during the public release of the first announcement
of the project Lee (in my opinion) was connected to. Project TP was a early warning
system, that the U.S. was to share with other nations. This was a "radar" project worked
on by the Navy R&D.

>
> One would expect that this was the subject of Krushev's visit to Iowa
> State University - It seems the "sharing of ideas" Kruschev had in mind
> dealt with agriculture Krushev was himself a Minister of Agriculture under
> Stalin until replaced in 1951 and had experienced a famine for which he
> was critisized by Stalin..
>

The wheat deals played a major role in US/Soviet relations.

> >
> > >
> > > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > > 'cooperation'.
> > >
> >
> > There was more to this.......Project TP is the prime consideration of
> > where Lee fits in with this "cooperation".
>
> "TP"?

The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of Naval Research.
It was made public August 7, 1959. In 1959 the Soviets sent us all of their reseach
on Sputnik "first" and when Nixon express his priviate "thanks" during his visit, TP was
"offered" to expand agreements. This fit in with Ike's Open Skies Treaty. I've mentioned
this in the past......it is the most logical connection to consider of all known intell operations,
connected to "joint" efforts, that the public was not fully aware of due, to public and political
concerns on both sides.
>
> >
> >
> > > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> > > USSR.
> > >
> >
> > Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even though
> > he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days were
> > up. Things had to change during that first week......
>
> I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to take a
> Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip. Further,
> his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to send a
> "message" concerning his status and where he was headed.

The sucide attempt never took place.......it's pure and simple cover and a piss poor one
at that.

>
>
> >for some reason Lee
> > was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee. For
> > example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
> > meetings.
>
> I thought he wasn't interested in attending?

Attending, would be counter to regulations and laws that were being used against
POW's of the Korean War back in the U.S. at this time. It was a "tricky situation"
and is a prime consideration in the aspects of "failure to prosecute" Oswald and his
citizenship status. There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
have been offically presented. However, they never would have surfaced except for
Oswald's involvement in Novemeber of 1963. But the USG could not present all of
the facts for reasons of National Security. The facts are out there and the surface
can be seen. However many of the confirmation details remain locked away or destroyed
as we know since my FOIA request established "criminal history records" were.

jko

>
>
> ::Clark::




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 13 Oct 2004 13:12:20 -0400


Clark.....small snip at the begining

"clark wilkinsclwilkins@prodigy.netwroteinmessagenews10moqvjd2o4pbe5@corp.supernews.com...
>


> > >
> > > Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
> > > Correct?
> >
> > the paper work actually starts 1 June to list Mrs. Oswald as a dependent.
> > The request for the "Q" allotment starts 20 July, made by Oswald. She did
> > not fill out the paper work, Lee did.....however it is her
> > request........wording issue.
> >
>
> This process appears to be timed to meet a September 8 discharge - the 90
> day window you mentioned below.
>

It starts just before the public release on August 7, 1959 of plans for using Project TP.
It must however be remembered that at this time.......Project TP was already outdated,
with a new and better system. However TP was "new" and not available to the nations
that we planned to share this system with. Public disclosure about the "sharing" was
important well before any "finalized agreements" could be made. It was a brillant plan
to prevent "first strike" worries.....and I think it was all Nixon's idea supported by Ike's
desires. Joe Kennedy was involved in this and I also believe JFK objected to some
aspects of this, but those objections were probably made in priviate between Joe Sr.
JFK and RFK. Papa Joe was a key member of the 5412 subcommittee that had to
"approve" of such intelligence operations. Go back to the 1955-56 period to verify
this, Papa Joe sent RFK to the USSR to re-establish JFK's connections made just
prior to WWII.


>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> > > > takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
> > >
> > > John Pic was also able to send money.
> >
> > Although higher rank he had a family to support in Japan.
> >
> > >
> > > > > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> > > > considering that the funds she will
> > > > > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently
> alleviate
> > > this
> > > > situation".
> > >
> > > Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
> > > But he didn't.
> >
> > So could have Robert......but neither were "asked" ? or involved.
> >
>
> Yes. Lee has asked his mother to ask him.
> When was his mother's "accident"?
>
>

Her first Dr. visit to Dr. Hamilton was 20 Feb, 1959, however her accident happened
5 December, 1958.

snip

> > >
> > > If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
> > > that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR
> is
> > > timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
> > >
> > > And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
> > > December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
> > >
> > > He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.
> >
> > Actually I believe he was kept buzy......but that's for later.
>
> According to him, he was studying Russian.

Yes, and I believe it was within a "group" .....but that will be very difficult to
show at this time.........I do illustrate it in one of my filmscripts.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If Oswald
> > > > > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > > > > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
> > > listed
> > > > expenses.
> > >
> > > And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.
> > >
> >
> > And if Robert kicked in or Lee took money out of his "savings" the
> > discharge was not needed.
> >
>
> Yes. Lee's early discharge request was phoney. You and I have seen through
> it in 48 hours. Yet the USMC doesn't see through it at all - not in 1959
> and not in 1962. And over four people looked at it.

Actually it's take me alot longer to work out all the primary and supporting details,
1964-1994, but I did see the conflict during the end of 63 and after reading the WR.
I knew things were "fishy" while reading the WR for the first time. Just never worked
on it in great detail. A clear path had to be laid out and each step supported by the law
and known history. There were alot of "wacko" outlines out there that had to be eliminated from
consideration.

snip

> > >
> > > The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking
> a
> > > thirty day early discharge.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that's the basic consideration.
> >
>
> If this "mistake" wasn't made, Lee would be subject to the 90 day ruled
> you cite below.
>

The 90 window is not really important, but it was the ground work in working out
all the conflicts from taking Lee's fingerprint record and assignment of a service
number, prior to getting "permission to enlist" to his discharge. This shows Lee's
enlistment from start to finish is in conflict with the presented history.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23
> October,
> > > > 1959, only 65
> > > > > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
> > > then
> > > > 45 days of
> > > > > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> > > > however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > > > > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the
> application......outside
> > > of
> > > > > the 90 day window.
> > >
> > > What is the "90 day window"?
> > >
> >
> > The law allows these types of early discharges up to 90 days prior to
> > ETS..not 91, 92, etc days before ETS. It can be less then 90 days but not
> > more then.
> >
>
> That would correspond to about September 8, 1959.
> Looks like somebody knew the rule.
>

There were no grounds or need to go outside of it "offically". The ball park date was
around the 7th or 8th.....but I really think there was a "saftey factor" plus or minus a
few days, here. The 11th of Sepetmber discharge was well within the timeframe needed.

> > > > >
> > > > > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D
> allotment"
> > > > of $40
> > > > > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was
> money
> > > > send by
> > > > > Oswald out of his pay.
> > >
> >
> > The following is data that was obtained but not forwarded to Poindexter
> >
> >
> > > On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
> > > Included with it was the following:
> > >
> > > 1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen
> 20
> > > Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is
> addressed
> > > "To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:
> > >
> > > 2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to
> inform
> > > anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
> > > Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
> > >
> > > 3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
> > > Gladys Johnson, NP
> > >
> > > 4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
> > > Ima Hamilton, NP
> > >
> > > 5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
> > > Gladys Johnson, NP
> > >
> > > 6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
> > > informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the
> form
> > > needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it
> out
> > > on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
> > >
> > > The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who
> recommended
> > > approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
> > > after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
> > >
> >
> > Only the "D" Allotment was submitted to Poindexter.
>
>
> Poindexter made his decision based on just the "D" allotment? Isn't that
> meaingless?
>

Yep......as well as all the "extra" data sent prior to the July 31 LOI to Mrs. Oswald.
But NOBODY would have bothered with this....if not for November 1963. The info
could NOT BE covered up......just "ignored".....by putting out the basic details, but
not the key considerations of how everything fit together. Sort of hiding it out in the
open. Too much for the average person to even bother with.

>
> > All of the above were
> > not "included" in the "Service Record" nor were they the required
> > information or evidence required. They were obtained before Mrs. Oswald
> > recieved the 31 July, 1959 letter of instructions listing the evidence in
> > support needed.
>
> So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?

The data was collected......for whatever reason, but to me it's just background
cover that was just to establish a need......that would not have mattered one way
or another if it was used or not. Lee would be seperated from his active duty
assignment one way or another. Only the offically requested data, after the
31 July LOI (letter of instruction) would be legal evidence. But some key element of
"confirmation" is missing......care to guess what? Here's a clue......the Red Cross/Red Cresent.
The early letters, show prior knowledge of what "would be" required and
that I think is more important then the content or use of these early letters. Like I
said.......NOBODY would bother with a detailed background check for any reason.

As a side note for you to consider......would $91.30 equal the money given Oswald
in the USSR for "quarters allowence?" To make his stay in the USSR easier? The
payment was authorized 30 September "By direction" (M. H. Insley). However
the person or office the "direction" is given is crossed out, in the doc I have.

I've never presented this factor of consideration before to anybody.

>
> Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
> discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.
>
> It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
> letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected interference.
>
> He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a review
> board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer of
> August 24 was bypassed.
>
> Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
> 24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).

Don't worry about Poindexter.......you might have the wrong one in mind,
the only consideration that is important is that these endorsements went
ahead of the material needed in support......ie the September material.

>
> > The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959. On 24 August
> > she was informed she needed to provide additional information which was
> > not submitted until 4 September. Dr. Howards letter was dated Sept 3,
> > 1959, and another dated 4 Sept.
> >
>
> But the officer requesting said info has already been overruled in making
> it before the additional information even arrived.

This is a key issue, and it will be difficult to show correctly and in detail here. But here
is the basics. The sworn affidavits are made in the end of July....all requesting
discharge, not dependency allotment.

In July all these statement would all be directed to Major Cooley, Head of the Benefits Section,
since no formal request for discharge had been made as of yet (17 August)

Mrs. Oswald has to fill out a "Parent's Dependency Affidavit" and that was sent out 31 July, 1959.

Lee had to be "instructed" on what to obtain.....for both the "dependency" and "discharge"
at the same time. MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Two requests were being made
that counter each other......all were "used" to seperate Lee early. Lee's request was a
"offical" document, prepared by "office personnel" * Lee would have to get this instruction
from "office personnel" or other sources. Since the two requests conflict, chances are
the instructions came from outside of the "chain".....ie other sources. However, both
requests are being kept "seperate" and these people are "outside the loop".

*although wrong ref was used Marine Corps Order 1910.18 instead of Para 10273 MCM.

All of this was going on prior to establishment of "dependency" and it's "approval". The
legal consideration for either the "allotment" or "discharge".......one or the other.

It's a cluster of conflict and that's the basic consideration.

snip

> > > > is one day prior to the
> > > > > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
> > > release
> > > > according to
> > > > > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
> > >
> > > Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.
> >
> > It was pre-approved "By direction".
> >
>
> And from above...at least as high as Poindexter. The one attempt to slow
> the process down by requesting more info was ignored.
>
> No delays could be tolerated - even for two weeks.

There remain a few days plus or minus.......it's not vital to release Lee on any
specific day as long as he is released before the ship sails.

>

> > > ???
> > > I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.
> >
> > The "key documents of the supporting evidence" were not summited until
> > after 4 September, 1959. None of the July letters were of any value.
> >
>
> How close did the July letters come to meeting the requirements of the
> September letters? I would anticipate they must have come close - as some
> of them come from the same people.

They do.....it's just that there are other considerations that I mention above. There
are two seperate "needs"........both in conflict. This is another area that I have not
presented for discussion in the past......but I think you can see the problem. The
dependency has to be legally established before either the allotment or discharge.
It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the "endoresements" of
discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment is. However, if Lee
is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there? The conflicts however would
never see the light of day........EXCEPT for Oswald's involvement in November, 1963.

Because there are "3 sons" and Lee is the youngest and the poorest, the sole
responsibity of dependency ON HIM has to be covered before either the discharge
or the allotment can come into play.......which is only a small reason why things had
to start "early" on. The accident was not serious......snotty nose.... and I think it was
used improperly.....but it would serve the purposes.

>
> If they come close, it suggests that Lee had insight as to what would be
> requested on August 24.
>

Yes, Lee was informed well in advance, chances are when plans were first being
worked out to see if he could be used.

snip

> > >
> > > >From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency
> discharge
> > > did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
> > > Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait.
> Wait
> > > for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
> > > trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
> > > intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
> > > would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
> > > granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.
> >
> > The above is a consideration, however not the best, the ""one year visa"
> > was not part of any consideration prior to Lee arriving......at least not
> > in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the boarder. He
> > only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed it off.
> >
>
> Would this be the "free sharing of ideas" Nixon spoke of?

Yep, based on the Soviets providing "Soviet Space Science" all the research on Sputnik.

>
> In my consideration, Lee is, at all points in time, attempting to enter
> the USSR (He only has funds for a "one way" trip) and the Russians are
> expecting him. Otherwise, they simply would have removed his access to
> razor blades and walked him to the nearest border. The Russians should
> have done exactly the opposite of what they did when Lee attempted
> suicide.

Exactly.......just look at the defection of Petrulli......just before Lee entered.
If they would not accept Petrulli, as a skilled metal worker, why take a suicidal
youth and give him a "skilled metal workers" job......that Petrulli was qualified
for. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

>
> IMO, there is an argument going on, inside the highest offices of the USSR
> on whether to let him in or not, with Krushev in favor and his opponents
> against. The arguments "against" required Lee's early (pre December)
> arrival in the USSR in order to wait for them to be overcome.

The KBG was the prime "objector" in all of this.

>
> My conclusion is that Lee is part of the "free exchange of ideas" deal
> made with the USSR in December,1959. Yet neither side could admit to Lee's
> role. On the US side, no one wants to admit that they gave the USSR
> American technology (possibly agriculture related from Iowa State
> University) and so a "defector" offers it, on the USSR side, no one wants
> to admit that they just allowed an American observor into their country
> (As evidenced by Lee's "The Kollective") in exchange for it. Opposition to
> Oswald's entry, had to be eliminated on the Soviet side by December, 1959
> if it was to correspond to the US offer to "share ideas" made that same
> month. If Oswald was not admitted in December, 1959, the US offer to
> "share ideas" would have been withdrawn by the December delegation. The
> Russians needed more time to get Lee cleared by December, 1959 - and
> requested the wheels for the trade be set in motion before December, 1959
> - necessitating Oswald's early discharge.

I believe I have stronger support for my view......but the basic considerations between
our views is still there.

>
> Poindexter will now personally see to it that Private Oswald's early
> discharge is approved, brushing aside the Aug 24 request for more
> information, and getting Lee out on the earliest possible date that still
> fit within the 90 day "window".
>
> Lee now heads over early and sits on ice at his Moscow hotel waiting for
> the December, 1959 deal to take place.

I believe that the deal has already been made......while Lee was on the boat
over. To me the deal had to be made before Lee crossed the line into the USSR.
The key here is the speed involved in getting Lee in. Afterwards means little to the
original plan.

>
> Lee sent a message, twice, to the US in December, 1959, stating not only
> that he had successfully gotten in, but where he was going.
>

Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct 31.

> Lee's finances show he brought the exact amount of money needed to stay in
> the USSR into December, 1959. I don't think this is coincidence.

There are many conflicts dealing with the "funds".....but a minor thing in the overall
scale of things.

>
> > >
> > > If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
> > > coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
> > > to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
> > > discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
> > > December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
> > > technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
> > > earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.
> >
> > Lee could have bought a round trip ticket from L.A. or N.Y.C. for $30.00
> > on the new fly now pay later plan being pushed by TWA. and left at any
> > time. There was a purpose behind the boat trip. He would have only had
> > to travel about 24 hours, by flying and screwed the airlines......if he
> > was as presented.
>
> I think trans-Atlantic air travel was very, very expensive in 1959,
> although the USG certainly could have afforded to pay his airfare. I don't
> know why they didn't. I can see why they didn't let him take a military
> flight - a rather embarrassing eans for a planned "defector" to reach the
> USSR if revealed.

Lee might have flown military once over and off the ship.....I'm still working on
that and do have a plan to do more work in England next year. My son is there
now in the Air Force. Mike and I are going to get drunk at least one day while I'm
there.

>
> I see Lee as being put on a budget and given a destination.

See the added consideration on the $91.30.......I don't think anyone ever even
considered that "alternate consideration".

snip


> >
> > Synder was aware of Oswald.......I've mention the "address" issue in the
> > past, you can take it that I don't want to add it to this thread. A
> > member of the Supreme Soviet.....was prepared to "take care of Lee" I've
> > mentioned her as well in the past.
>
> Yes. And approval for Lee to stay in the USSR came from the "Supreme
> Soviet". In addition to "her" (Who couldn't be closer or more trusted to
> Krushev) I have also traced Leo Setyaev as being a participant to Lee's
> entry into the USSR and, later, his exit - on the Soviet side of the deal.
>
> Without these two, Lee would have been escorted to the nearest border and
> dumped.
>
If Lee was acting as presented in the offical version of events. The Soviets would
have no choice but to kick Lee out the day his 6 day visa expired.
>
> >
> >
> > > If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the
> USG
> > > and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
> > > early discharge from the USMC.
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the areas where we agree on one point but disagree on
> > another. Both the USG and the USSR expected the "defection". It could not
> > have happened without the support of both.
>
> Absolutely. On the US side we have pointed to Poindexter's participation
> and Snyder's participation is far more provable than Poindexter's. Snyder
> left a path to follow a mile wide behind himself.

Snyder was used.......I really can't pinpoint if he "questioned the activities" or was
fully aware of what was going on around him. The USMC itself was really not a
major factor, Lee's activities in the USMC was basically over once he returned, from
Japan, his training and cover established, well before he was selected for this detail,
although his stay in Calif is of interest. Without a doubt Snyder did things that were
outside of normal operations concerning Lee. I don't think he did so because he was
stupid.....most likely he actions in brief were "By direction" and un questioned, he just
followed through with the instructions, which btw I believe Lee passed on to him.

snip

> > > August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
> > > the response to the Pic letter.
> > >
> >
> > The Pic data came in on 4 September, 1959
> >
>
> And, when considered necessary information on Aug 24, was no longer
> considered necessary on Aug 27 - A period of just THREE DAYS!
>
> The USMC did everything it had to do to get LHO out of the service, 90
> days early. And successfully accomplished same.

Yes, regardless if the paperwork was all in a row or not.....

snip

> > >
> > > Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
> > >
> >
> > These are the "key documents" I mentioned above
> >
>
> Lee was drummed out on orders from above. He then wasted no time in
> heading for the USSR where Snyder was waiting for his arrival...

I don't know for sure if Snyder was informed so early in the game or not. I like
to give him the benifit of doubt, one that allows him to be "used" but not directly
involved.....I don't think he had all the details and in reality the less involved the
better.

>
>
> > >
> > > BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a
> 9/02/2001
> > > post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
> > > the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's the area we disagree on......but that's ok at this time. I'm not
> > sure many can handle the full details all at one time.
> >
> > jko
>
>
> Looking forward to hearing what operation you identify Lee as being
> involved in.
>
>
> For lurkers, JKO and I have reached similar (although not identical)
> conclusions using separate evidence. Due to the fact that we use separate
> evidence and due to differences of how we often view the same evidence, we
> don't always agree on the conclusions drawn (In fact, that's a rare
> occassion). What we did find was that the presented history of LHO is
> incorrect. Regardless of what you believe happened on 11/22/63, the idea
> that Oswald was acting "on his own" when he entered the US embassy in
> Moscow is flat out contradicted by the evidence.

That is correct........Lee could not have acted "on his own".

>
> We do not simply rely on "Poindexter approving Oswald's discharge" as the
> basis for our case. That connection is admittedly flimsy taken by itself.
> We had to start somewhere and JKO had posted on Oswald's discharge and
> this is where I happened to jump in. Poindexter's participation aside, we
> have shown that Lee's early discharge was aided by his superiors, who
> removed all obstacles for additional requested information which might
> slow down his discharge, with the result being that Lee obtained the
> earlest possible release from the USMC.
>

The discharge conflicts would never had surfaced.

> For Lee's part, we can see that his plan to obtain an early discharge
> originated sometime between March 19, 1959 and June 1, 1959 (Probably May
> IMO) and that he knew ALL the steps in the required process, beginning
> with his d eclaringhismotheradependentonJune1,1959.
>
> It will be interesting to see if JKO can demonstrate a link between the
> affidavits Lee collected in July and those requested in August.
>

see above.......there are two paper trails to follow "dependency" and "discharge".
Both because of the conflict of interest, counter each other and show that things
are not "kosher".......I honestly believe that the whole process of seperation was
"overkill" and not needed.....but then one has to consider other factors, of which there
are alot missing. We just do not have "access" without a full Congressional investigation
into key areas.

jko



>
>
> ::Clark::
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 13 Oct 2004 22:05:58 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.

No problems yet.

>
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mojs8qq0e010@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with
the
> > > > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard
Nixon's
> > > > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in
the
> > > > following September.
> > >
> > > Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
> > > debate,
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > >starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
> > > him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly
suspect
> > > that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of
staying
> > > in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented
from
> > > staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the
fall
> > > of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the
right
> > > individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started,
1
> > > June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started
20,
> > > July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection
plan.....things
> > > had to start no later then May, 1959.
> >
> > For early discharge - Yes.
> > But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
> > indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.
>
> The school issue and all the retated connections is where Greg's work
comes in.
> Because of the quality of his research, I don't get into the details in
depth. His
> connections are in my opinion of interest and need to be explored in
greater detail.
>

I was going to bring them up next to show the pattern of how Lee was aided
in entering the USSR. Maybe we should send him an E mail and let him
present it?

>
> >
> > Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain
an
> > early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.
> >
> > > I believe that things started
> > > before 20 February, 1959.
> >
> > Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?
>
> It is around this time......off hand I'm not sure exactly....but could
look it up.
>

I'm pretty sure it's this time.

The AS college app demonstrates Lee was aware of his "Active Reserve"
status and need to be "in school" overseas. Since his early discharge
placed him in the "Inactive Reserve", no need to be "in school" existed
afer September, 1959.

He evidently had been expecting to be in the "Active Reserves" while in
the USSR - which again means that, at the time of his ASDC app, he was
expecting a December, 1959 discharge date and not an early discharge. I'll
refer to this as the "Stage 1" plan.

The early discharge represents a "change of plans" generated "top down".
I'll refer to this as the "Stage 2" plan.


> >
> > > The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
> > > "made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
> > > Oswald.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George
Washington,
> > the
> > > > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
> > threat
> > > > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
> > declared
> > > > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
> > negotiate
> > > > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had
some
> > 60
> > > > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was
interested
> > in
> > > > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
> > used
> > > > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
> > radio
> > > > factory).
> > >
> > > The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.
> >
> > I didn't know that.
> >
>
> The CIA did and the plant production was of interest. The U.S. military
was also
> interested in Minsk. The Soviets followed the German production
plan.....but after
> the war. The plan can best be understood by reading "Why England Slept"
by JFK.
>

By JFK?
LOL!

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the
ABM
> > > > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
> > ideas
> > > > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
> > reciprocal
> > > > visit to the US.
> > >
> > > These exchanges would still take some time to reach the point Oswald
comes
> > > into play.......but the plans are progressing. Lee would not be
needed
> > > until all of certain private talks were finalized......he did however
have
> > > to be on his way.
> >
> > And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to Nixon's
> > offer to "share ideas".
> >
>
> I believe that the ground work was already a done deal.

Yes. It has been in the making, as we both note, since at least February,
1959.

> I believe this 'handshake"
> treaty was worked out during the Nixon/Niki "boat ride".

I'm sure it was the major topic of conversation between them. However, a
change of plan was introduced before June 1, 1959 on when Oswald was to
leave, requiring his early discharge. So things had progressed to "stage
2" before Nixon and Kruschev ever met.

> Nixon did far more then
> people knew in Ike's admin. In fact Ike admitted it during a press
conf...but that
> comment was used "against" him in the election. Ike was asked about some
of the
> greatest things that Nixon did as VP......Ike said "I'd have to think
about it"....(roughly)
> The press took this to mean Ike could not think of anything great Nixon
did, but in
> truth he meant he would have to think about what he could actually
say.....that was
> not "classified" or that Nixon ran things, while Ike was ill. It might
have cost Nixon
> the election.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
> > opposite
> > > > directions to each other's country's.
> > >
> > > But the agreements have not yet been finalized.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Lee's departure however was during the public release of the first
announcement
> of the project Lee (in my opinion) was connected to. Project TP was a
early warning
> system, that the U.S. was to share with other nations. This was a "radar"
project worked
> on by the Navy R&D.
>

If public release of "Project TP" was moved up from a previously scheduled
December, 1959 release, then that would explain why Lee's departure date
was moved up also (Stage 1 going to Stage 2).

> >
> > One would expect that this was the subject of Krushev's visit to Iowa
> > State University - It seems the "sharing of ideas" Kruschev had in mind
> > dealt with agriculture Krushev was himself a Minister of Agriculture
under
> > Stalin until replaced in 1951 and had experienced a famine for which he
> > was critisized by Stalin..
> >
>
> The wheat deals played a major role in US/Soviet relations.
>

Yes. I was unaware of Project TP but realized LHO arrival coincides with
an "information sharing" offer by Nixon. I had considered two
possibilities - wheat science or space science. Wheat science was
supported by Kruschev's trip to Iowa in September, 1959 while space
programs were the established topic of the December, 1959 offer.

But we both agree that Lee is part of the trade.


> > >
> > > >
> > > > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering
space
> > > > 'cooperation'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There was more to this.......Project TP is the prime consideration of
> > > where Lee fits in with this "cooperation".
> >
> > "TP"?
>
> The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of Naval
Research.
> It was made public August 7, 1959. In 1959 the Soviets sent us all of
their reseach
> on Sputnik "first" and when Nixon express his priviate "thanks" during his
visit, TP was
> "offered" to expand agreements. This fit in with Ike's Open Skies Treaty.
I've mentioned
> this in the past......it is the most logical connection to consider of all
known intell operations,
> connected to "joint" efforts, that the public was not fully aware of due,
to public and political
> concerns on both sides.

"Joint" efforts obviously occurred but I believe Lee is a string attached
to a deal - perhaps to TP.

> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to
the
> > > > USSR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even
though
> > > he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days
were
> > > up. Things had to change during that first week......
> >
> > I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to take a
> > Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip.
Further,
> > his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to send a
> > "message" concerning his status and where he was headed.
>
> The sucide attempt never took place.......it's pure and simple cover and a
piss poor one
> at that.

The wrist scar was found during his autopsy - although I do not consider
the attempt to be genuine. Is that what you mean?

>
> >
> >
> > >for some reason Lee
> > > was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee.
For
> > > example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
> > > meetings.
> >
> > I thought he wasn't interested in attending?
>
> Attending, would be counter to regulations and laws that were being used
against
> POW's of the Korean War back in the U.S. at this time. It was a "tricky
situation"

Ahh! Brainwashing!
So Lee could not attend the worker meetings or he would violate US law?


> and is a prime consideration in the aspects of "failure to prosecute"
Oswald and his
> citizenship status.

One of many.

> There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
> have been offically presented.

That's why I wanted to bring up his ASC app.

>However, they never would have surfaced except for
> Oswald's involvement in Novemeber of 1963.

Agreed.
And, when they surfaced, they became a problem for DOD and the AG.

> But the USG could not present all of
> the facts for reasons of National Security.

It would have also screwed up the "Oswald was a loner" presentation.
No one would have believed that one anymore.

> The facts are out there and the surface
> can be seen. However many of the confirmation details remain locked away
or destroyed
> as we know since my FOIA request established "criminal history records"
were.

Yes. We are left showing the possibilities and then showing how Lee's
actions and the USG's actions fit those possibilities a mere 100% of the
time.


::Clark::



From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 14 Oct 2004 00:34:38 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416d34c8@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark.....small snip at the begining
>
> "cla rkwilkinsclwilkins@prodigy.netwroteinmessage
news:10moqvjd2o4pbe5@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his
mother.
> > > > Correct?
> > >
> > > the paper work actually starts 1 June to list Mrs. Oswald as a
dependent.
> > > The request for the "Q" allotment starts 20 July, made by Oswald. She
did
> > > not fill out the paper work, Lee did.....however it is her
> > > request........wording issue.
> > >
> >
> > This process appears to be timed to meet a September 8 discharge - the
90
> > day window you mentioned below.
> >
>
> It starts just before the public release on August 7, 1959 of plans for
using Project TP.
> It must however be remembered that at this time.......Project TP was
already outdated,
> with a new and better system. However TP was "new" and not available to
the nations
> that we planned to share this system with. Public disclosure about the
"sharing" was
> important well before any "finalized agreements" could be made. It was a
brillant plan
> to prevent "first strike" worries.....and I think it was all Nixon's idea
supported by Ike's
> desires. Joe Kennedy was involved in this and I also believe JFK objected
to some
> aspects of this, but those objections were probably made in priviate
between Joe Sr.
> JFK and RFK. Papa Joe was a key member of the 5412 subcommittee

For lurkers, "5412 subcommittee" came under the Special Group or Special
Group Augmented (SGA) which included the AG. Many rsearchers will be
familiar with the SGA for selecting targets inside Castro's Cuba.


>that had to
> "approve" of such intelligence operations. Go back to the 1955-56 period
to verify
> this, Papa Joe sent RFK to the USSR to re-establish JFK's connections made
just
> prior to WWII.
>

Which brings us to JFK's book, "Why England Slept"?

>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> > > > > takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > John Pic was also able to send money.
> > >
> > > Although higher rank he had a family to support in Japan.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> > > > > considering that the funds she will
> > > > > > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently
> > alleviate
> > > > this
> > > > > situation".
> > > >
> > > > Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
> > > > But he didn't.
> > >
> > > So could have Robert......but neither were "asked" ? or involved.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Lee has asked his mother to ask him.
> > When was his mother's "accident"?
> >
> >
>
> Her first Dr. visit to Dr. Hamilton was 20 Feb, 1959, however her accident
happened
> 5 December, 1958.
>

Ahhh! Feb 20, 1959 - the date you picked out for when Stage 2 begins based
on Mrs. Oswald needing to become a "dependent" for Lee's discharge. You
don't have a 'stage 1". You're in "stage 2" from the beginning.

However, Mrs. Oswald never said there was anything phoney about this
accident and if there was never a "stage 1", Lee should have applied to
attend the fall semester at AS college and not spring.


> snip
>
> > > >
> > > > If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we
find
> > > > that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the
USSR
> > is
> > > > timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
> > > >
> > > > And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
> > > > December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
> > > >
> > > > He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.
> > >
> > > Actually I believe he was kept buzy......but that's for later.
> >
> > According to him, he was studying Russian.
>
> Yes, and I believe it was within a "group" .....but that will be very
difficult to
> show at this time.........I do illustrate it in one of my filmscripts.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > If Oswald
> > > > > > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would
have
> > > > > > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of
her
> > > > listed
> > > > > expenses.
> > > >
> > > > And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each
month.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And if Robert kicked in or Lee took money out of his "savings" the
> > > discharge was not needed.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Lee's early discharge request was phoney. You and I have seen
through
> > it in 48 hours. Yet the USMC doesn't see through it at all - not in 1959
> > and not in 1962. And over four people looked at it.
>
> Actually it's take me alot longer to work out all the primary and
supporting details,
> 1964-1994, but I did see the conflict during the end of 63 and after
reading the WR.
> I knew things were "fishy" while reading the WR for the first time. Just
never worked
> on it in great detail. A clear path had to be laid out and each step
supported by the law
> and known history. There were alot of "wacko" outlines out there that had
to be eliminated from
> consideration.
>
> snip
>
> > > >
> > > > The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only
seeking
> > a
> > > > thirty day early discharge.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the basic consideration.
> > >
> >
> > If this "mistake" wasn't made, Lee would be subject to the 90 day ruled
> > you cite below.
> >
>
> The 90 window is not really important, but it was the ground work in
working out
> all the conflicts from taking Lee's fingerprint record and assignment of a
service
> number, prior to getting "permission to enlist" to his discharge. This
shows Lee's
> enlistment from start to finish is in conflict with the presented history.
>

That's right. We've left out Lee's enlistment app from the discussion - a
major "red herring".

But I consider the 90 day window to be imporant because his release date
hits it "dead on".


> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23
> > October,
> > > > > 1959, only 65
> > > > > > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has
less
> > > > then
> > > > > 45 days of
> > > > > > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The
ETS
> > > > > however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > > > > > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the
> > application......outside
> > > > of
> > > > > > the 90 day window.
> > > >
> > > > What is the "90 day window"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The law allows these types of early discharges up to 90 days prior to
> > > ETS..not 91, 92, etc days before ETS. It can be less then 90 days but
not
> > > more then.
> > >
> >
> > That would correspond to about September 8, 1959.
> > Looks like somebody knew the rule.
> >
>
> There were no grounds or need to go outside of it "offically". The ball
park date was
> around the 7th or 8th.....but I really think there was a "saftey factor"
plus or minus a
> few days, here. The 11th of Sepetmber discharge was well within the
timeframe needed.
>

Exactly. Unless you want to poull out a calander for December 8, 1959 and
count back 90 days, a September 11 release should meet the 90 day
critieria.

But, once again, I argue this is a change in plan. All of Lee's planning,
schoolwise (Including Patrice Lumumba University) fits into his being
discharged with an "Active Reserve" status. He is clearly unaware, on Sept
11, that he now has"Inactive Reserve" status as he heads to the USSR. For
example, as an "Inactive Reservist", could he not have attended the
workers meetings? And requesting attendance at Patrice Lumumba University
would no longer be necessary. The questions he prepped himself for on
returning also reflect "Active Reserve" thinking.

If Lee planned early discharge since Feb 20, 1959, one would think he
would know he was headed to the Inactive Reserve versus Active. The whole
ASC thing becomes unnecessary if he's "Inactive", correct? But if he was
planning a December discharge back in February, 1959, then "Active
Reserve" and the ASC app become required thinking.

Not trying to prove you wrong - just showing why I follow this path.


> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D
> > allotment"
> > > > > of $40
> > > > > > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was
> > money
> > > > > send by
> > > > > > Oswald out of his pay.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The following is data that was obtained but not forwarded to
Poindexter
> > >
> > >
> > > > On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy
Discharge.
> > > > Included with it was the following:
> > > >
> > > > 1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first
seen
> > 20
> > > > Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is
> > addressed
> > > > "To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the
following:
> > > >
> > > > 2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to
> > inform
> > > > anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with
her
> > > > Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
> > > >
> > > > 3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
> > > > Gladys Johnson, NP
> > > >
> > > > 4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
> > > > Ima Hamilton, NP
> > > >
> > > > 5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
> > > > Gladys Johnson, NP
> > > >
> > > > 6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs.
Oswald
> > > > informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her
the
> > form
> > > > needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent
it
> > out
> > > > on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
> > > >
> > > > The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who
> > recommended
> > > > approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two
days
> > > > after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only the "D" Allotment was submitted to Poindexter.
> >
> >
> > Poindexter made his decision based on just the "D" allotment? Isn't
that
> > meaingless?
> >
>
> Yep......as well as all the "extra" data sent prior to the July 31 LOI to
Mrs. Oswald.
> But NOBODY would have bothered with this....if not for November 1963. The
info
> could NOT BE covered up......just "ignored".....by putting out the basic
details, but
> not the key considerations of how everything fit together. Sort of hiding
it out in the
> open. Too much for the average person to even bother with.
>

But it's now a smoking gun.


> >
> > > All of the above were
> > > not "included" in the "Service Record" nor were they the required
> > > information or evidence required. They were obtained before Mrs.
Oswald
> > > recieved the 31 July, 1959 letter of instructions listing the evidence
in
> > > support needed.
> >
> > So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?
>
> The data was collected......for whatever reason, but to me it's just
background
> cover that was just to establish a need......that would not have mattered
one way
> or another if it was used or not.

Correct. Lee could say he needed an early discharge to tell jokes to his
mother to help alleviate her physical suffering and his discharge would
have been approved.

> Lee would be seperated from his active duty
> assignment one way or another. Only the offically requested data, after
the
> 31 July LOI (letter of instruction) would be legal evidence. But some key
element of
> "confirmation" is missing......care to guess what? Here's a clue......the
Red Cross/Red Cresent.
> The early letters, show prior knowledge of what "would be" required and
> that I think is more important then the content or use of these early
letters.

It comes close to avoiding the Letter of instruction sent to Mrs. Oswald
though for more info. It shows Lee had knowledge of what would be asked
for and sought to provide it before it was asked for.


> Like I
> said.......NOBODY would bother with a detailed background check for any
reason.
>

I think that might have drawn Poindexter's ire...


> As a side note for you to consider......would $91.30 equal the money given
Oswald
> in the USSR for "quarters allowence?" To make his stay in the USSR
easier? The
> payment was authorized 30 September "By direction" (M. H. Insley).
However
> the person or office the "direction" is given is crossed out, in the doc I
have.

Interesting thought.

However, I've calculated the amount of money Lee was given to pay for the
trip, versus what he had, and came up with exactly $ 2,500.00 (Or maybe it
was exactly $ 1,500.00? There's that memory problem I warned you
about...). The even dollar amount is suspicious...


>
> I've never presented this factor of consideration before to anybody.

I've never bothered to find out what Lee's hotel bill was.

>
> >
> > Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
> > discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.
> >
> > It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
> > letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected
interference.
> >
> > He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a
review
> > board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer
of
> > August 24 was bypassed.
> >
> > Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
> > 24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).
>
> Don't worry about Poindexter.......you might have the wrong one in mind,
> the only consideration that is important is that these endorsements went
> ahead of the material needed in support......ie the September material.
>

That was my point...

> >
> > > The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959. On 24 August
> > > she was informed she needed to provide additional information which
was
> > > not submitted until 4 September. Dr. Howards letter was dated Sept 3,
> > > 1959, and another dated 4 Sept.
> > >
> >
> > But the officer requesting said info has already been overruled in
making
> > it before the additional information even arrived.
>
> This is a key issue, and it will be difficult to show correctly and in
detail here. But here
> is the basics. The sworn affidavits are made in the end of July....all
requesting
> discharge, not dependency allotment.

For lurkers, the affidavits for discharge are being collected in July
before they were even requested. And the "dependency allotment" is a
necessary step to obtaining a "dependency early discharge".


>
> In July all these statement would all be directed to Major Cooley, Head of
the Benefits Section,
> since no formal request for discharge had been made as of yet (17 August)

For lurkers, Cooley has received affidavits that do not match Lee's
request for a "dependency allotment".

>
> Mrs. Oswald has to fill out a "Parent's Dependency Affidavit" and that was
sent out 31 July, 1959.
>
> Lee had to be "instructed" on what to obtain.....for both the "dependency"
and "discharge"
> at the same time.

An attempt to save time in order to get Lee out of the USMC as quickly as
the 90 day rule will allow.

> MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Two requests were being made
> that counter each other......all were "used" to seperate Lee early. Lee's
request was a
> "offical" document, prepared by "office personnel" * Lee would have to get
this instruction
> from "office personnel" or other sources. Since the two requests
conflict, chances are
> the instructions came from outside of the "chain".....ie other sources.
However, both
> requests are being kept "seperate" and these people are "outside the
loop".

Certainly the offiucer who requested more info on Aug 24 was "out of the
loop". In fact, the only people "in the loop" appear to be Oswald and
someone above, possibly Poindexter.

>
> *although wrong ref was used Marine Corps Order 1910.18 instead of Para
10273 MCM.
>
> All of this was going on prior to establishment of "dependency" and it's
"approval". The
> legal consideration for either the "allotment" or "discharge".......one or
the other.
>
> It's a cluster of conflict and that's the basic consideration.
>
> snip

If speed is the purpose with "aid" from above, all conflict is removed.


>
> > > > > is one day prior to the
> > > > > > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date
for
> > > > release
> > > > > according to
> > > > > > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency
Discharge".
> > > >
> > > > Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.
> > >
> > > It was pre-approved "By direction".
> > >
> >
> > And from above...at least as high as Poindexter. The one attempt to slow
> > the process down by requesting more info was ignored.
> >
> > No delays could be tolerated - even for two weeks.
>
> There remain a few days plus or minus.......it's not vital to release Lee
on any
> specific day as long as he is released before the ship sails.
>

It's basic "need to know". No one informed our outsider aiding Oswald of
his ship sailing date, only that early discharge was a high priority to
accomplish. The person providing the aid aimed for the earliest discharge
date possible - September 11 - And met it. Mission accomplished without
ever knowing what the mission is.


> >
>
> > > > ???
> > > > I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not
September.
> > >
> > > The "key documents of the supporting evidence" were not summited until
> > > after 4 September, 1959. None of the July letters were of any value.
> > >
> >
> > How close did the July letters come to meeting the requirements of the
> > September letters? I would anticipate they must have come close - as
some
> > of them come from the same people.
>
> They do.....it's just that there are other considerations that I mention
above. There
> are two seperate "needs"........both in conflict. This is another area
that I have not
> presented for discussion in the past......but I think you can see the
problem. The
> dependency has to be legally established before either the allotment or
discharge.

Correct.
They should occur one step at a time - not simultaneously.
Howeverr, if not handled simultaneously, Lee will miss his 9/11 discharge
date - probably by as much as 6 weeks or not until mid October.

> It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the
"endoresements" of
> discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment is.
However, if Lee
> is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there?

Through 9/11/59.

> The conflicts however would
> never see the light of day........EXCEPT for Oswald's involvement in
November, 1963.

And there are more of these conflicts to come.


>
> Because there are "3 sons" and Lee is the youngest and the poorest, the
sole
> responsibity of dependency ON HIM has to be covered before either the
discharge
> or the allotment can come into play.......which is only a small reason why
things had
> to start "early" on. The accident was not serious......snotty nose....
and I think it was
> used improperly.....but it would serve the purposes.
>

Yes. It requires Lee had knowledge of the incident and shared it with his
outside advisor on how to get an early discharge - or Lee is his own USMC
legal expert.


> >
> > If they come close, it suggests that Lee had insight as to what would be
> > requested on August 24.
> >
>
> Yes, Lee was informed well in advance, chances are when plans were first
being
> worked out to see if he could be used.

And more information is about to come Oswald's way regarding "US
citizenship".

>
> snip
>
> > > >
> > > > >From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency
> > discharge
> > > > did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
> > > > Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to
wait.
> > Wait
> > > > for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology
as a
> > > > trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed
(by
> > > > intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge,
which
> > > > would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to
be
> > > > granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.
> > >
> > > The above is a consideration, however not the best, the ""one year
visa"
> > > was not part of any consideration prior to Lee arriving......at least
not
> > > in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the boarder.
He
> > > only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed it
off.
> > >
> >
> > Would this be the "free sharing of ideas" Nixon spoke of?
>
> Yep, based on the Soviets providing "Soviet Space Science" all the
research on Sputnik.
>

In case Jeff Morely is reading, how would he confirm that?


> >
> > In my consideration, Lee is, at all points in time, attempting to enter
> > the USSR (He only has funds for a "one way" trip) and the Russians are
> > expecting him. Otherwise, they simply would have removed his access to
> > razor blades and walked him to the nearest border. The Russians should
> > have done exactly the opposite of what they did when Lee attempted
> > suicide.
>
> Exactly.......just look at the defection of Petrulli......just before Lee
entered.
> If they would not accept Petrulli, as a skilled metal worker, why take a
suicidal
> youth and give him a "skilled metal workers" job......that Petrulli was
qualified
> for. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
>

Unless Lee is part of the "information trade" Nixon has arranged. In which
case the Soviets have to let him in - but again - only on a "need to know"
basis (Which reaches all the way up to the Supreme Soviet).

> >
> > IMO, there is an argument going on, inside the highest offices of the
USSR
> > on whether to let him in or not, with Krushev in favor and his opponents
> > against. The arguments "against" required Lee's early (pre December)
> > arrival in the USSR in order to wait for them to be overcome.
>
> The KBG was the prime "objector" in all of this.
>

Agreed.
Internal Security.
To them, admitting Oswald was admitting a spy.

> >
> > My conclusion is that Lee is part of the "free exchange of ideas" deal
> > made with the USSR in December,1959. Yet neither side could admit to
Lee's
> > role. On the US side, no one wants to admit that they gave the USSR
> > American technology (possibly agriculture related from Iowa State
> > University) and so a "defector" offers it, on the USSR side, no one
wants
> > to admit that they just allowed an American observor into their country
> > (As evidenced by Lee's "The Kollective") in exchange for it. Opposition
to
> > Oswald's entry, had to be eliminated on the Soviet side by December,
1959
> > if it was to correspond to the US offer to "share ideas" made that same
> > month. If Oswald was not admitted in December, 1959, the US offer to
> > "share ideas" would have been withdrawn by the December delegation. The
> > Russians needed more time to get Lee cleared by December, 1959 - and
> > requested the wheels for the trade be set in motion before December,
1959
> > - necessitating Oswald's early discharge.
>
> I believe I have stronger support for my view......but the basic
considerations between
> our views is still there.
>
> >
> > Poindexter will now personally see to it that Private Oswald's early
> > discharge is approved, brushing aside the Aug 24 request for more
> > information, and getting Lee out on the earliest possible date that
still
> > fit within the 90 day "window".
> >
> > Lee now heads over early and sits on ice at his Moscow hotel waiting for
> > the December, 1959 deal to take place.
>
> I believe that the deal has already been made......while Lee was on the
boat
> over.

Or even earlier.

> To me the deal had to be made before Lee crossed the line into the USSR.

With Krushev - Yes.
With the KGB - No.

> The key here is the speed involved in getting Lee in. Afterwards means
little to the
> original plan.
>

I think "afterwards" means removing all the road blocks that every Soviet
bureacrat "not in the loop" would immediately put in place against Lee.

> >
> > Lee sent a message, twice, to the US in December, 1959, stating not only
> > that he had successfully gotten in, but where he was going.
> >
>
> Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct 31.

I'll drag mine out and post them.
They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read them.


>
> > Lee's finances show he brought the exact amount of money needed to stay
in
> > the USSR into December, 1959. I don't think this is coincidence.
>
> There are many conflicts dealing with the "funds".....but a minor thing in
the overall
> scale of things.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed
to
> > > > coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required
Lee
> > > > to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's
December
> > > > discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in
late
> > > > December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to
share
> > > > technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to
arrive
> > > > earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.
> > >
> > > Lee could have bought a round trip ticket from L.A. or N.Y.C. for
$30.00
> > > on the new fly now pay later plan being pushed by TWA. and left at any
> > > time. There was a purpose behind the boat trip. He would have only
had
> > > to travel about 24 hours, by flying and screwed the airlines......if
he
> > > was as presented.
> >
> > I think trans-Atlantic air travel was very, very expensive in 1959,
> > although the USG certainly could have afforded to pay his airfare. I
don't
> > know why they didn't. I can see why they didn't let him take a military
> > flight - a rather embarrassing means for a planned "defector" to reach
the
> > USSR if revealed.
>
> Lee might have flown military once over and off the ship.....I'm still
working on
> that and do have a plan to do more work in England next year. My son is
there
> now in the Air Force. Mike and I are going to get drunk at least one day
while I'm
> there.

He "might" have based upon his passport stamp dates.

>
> >
> > I see Lee as being put on a budget and given a destination.
>
> See the added consideration on the $91.30.......I don't think anyone ever
even
> considered that "alternate consideration".

I hadn't.

>
> snip
>
>
> > >
> > > Synder was aware of Oswald.......I've mention the "address" issue in
the
> > > past, you can take it that I don't want to add it to this thread. A
> > > member of the Supreme Soviet.....was prepared to "take care of Lee"
I've
> > > mentioned her as well in the past.
> >
> > Yes. And approval for Lee to stay in the USSR came from the "Supreme
> > Soviet". In addition to "her" (Who couldn't be closer or more trusted to
> > Krushev) I have also traced Leo Setyaev as being a participant to Lee's
> > entry into the USSR and, later, his exit - on the Soviet side of the
deal.
> >
> > Without these two, Lee would have been escorted to the nearest border
and
> > dumped.
> >
> If Lee was acting as presented in the offical version of events. The
Soviets would
> have no choice but to kick Lee out the day his 6 day visa expired.

And without his request ever reaching the Supreme Soviet.


> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both
the
> > USG
> > > > and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain
an
> > > > early discharge from the USMC.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is one of the areas where we agree on one point but disagree on
> > > another. Both the USG and the USSR expected the "defection". It could
not
> > > have happened without the support of both.
> >
> > Absolutely. On the US side we have pointed to Poindexter's participation
> > and Snyder's participation is far more provable than Poindexter's.
Snyder
> > left a path to follow a mile wide behind himself.
>
> Snyder was used.......I really can't pinpoint if he "questioned the
activities" or was
> fully aware of what was going on around him. The USMC itself was really
not a
> major factor, Lee's activities in the USMC was basically over once he
returned, from
> Japan, his training and cover established, well before he was selected for
this detail,
> although his stay in Calif is of interest. Without a doubt Snyder did
things that were
> outside of normal operations concerning Lee. I don't think he did so
because he was
> stupid.....most likely he actions in brief were "By direction" and un
questioned, he just
> followed through with the instructions, which btw I believe Lee passed on
to him.

Lee gained entry to the US Embassy to Snyder when it was closed.
I will show more to show Snyder's involvement as we get there.


>
> snip
>
> > > > August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting
for
> > > > the response to the Pic letter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Pic data came in on 4 September, 1959
> > >
> >
> > And, when considered necessary information on Aug 24, was no longer
> > considered necessary on Aug 27 - A period of just THREE DAYS!
> >
> > The USMC did everything it had to do to get LHO out of the service, 90
> > days early. And successfully accomplished same.
>
> Yes, regardless if the paperwork was all in a row or not.....
>

And it wasn't.

> snip
>
> > > >
> > > > Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
> > > >
> > >
> > > These are the "key documents" I mentioned above
> > >
> >
> > Lee was drummed out on orders from above. He then wasted no time in
> > heading for the USSR where Snyder was waiting for his arrival...
>
> I don't know for sure if Snyder was informed so early in the game or not.
I like
> to give him the benifit of doubt, one that allows him to be "used" but not
directly
> involved.....I don't think he had all the details and in reality the less
involved the
> better.

Snyder returned Lee's passport to him and then asked for permission from
State to do so AFTER the fact.
Check the dates.

>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a
> > 9/02/2001
> > > > post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never
mentioned
> > > > the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's the area we disagree on......but that's ok at this time. I'm
not
> > > sure many can handle the full details all at one time.
> > >
> > > jko
> >
> >
> > Looking forward to hearing what operation you identify Lee as being
> > involved in.
> >
> >
> > For lurkers, JKO and I have reached similar (although not identical)
> > conclusions using separate evidence. Due to the fact that we use
separate
> > evidence and due to differences of how we often view the same evidence,
we
> > don't always agree on the conclusions drawn (In fact, that's a rare
> > occassion). What we did find was that the presented history of LHO is
> > incorrect. Regardless of what you believe happened on 11/22/63, the idea
> > that Oswald was acting "on his own" when he entered the US embassy in
> > Moscow is flat out contradicted by the evidence.
>
> That is correct........Lee could not have acted "on his own".
>
> >
> > We do not simply rely on "Poindexter approving Oswald's discharge" as
the
> > basis for our case. That connection is admittedly flimsy taken by
itself.
> > We had to start somewhere and JKO had posted on Oswald's discharge and
> > this is where I happened to jump in. Poindexter's participation aside,
we
> > have shown that Lee's early discharge was aided by his superiors, who
> > removed all obstacles for additional requested information which might
> > slow down his discharge, with the result being that Lee obtained the
> > earlest possible release from the USMC.
> >
>
> The discharge conflicts would never had surfaced.
>
> > For Lee's part, we can see that his plan to obtain an early discharge
> > originated sometime between March 19, 1959 and June 1, 1959 (Probably
May
> > IMO) and that he knew ALL the steps in the required process, beginning
> > with his declaringhismotheradependentonJune1,1959.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see if JKO can demonstrate a link between the
> > affidavits Lee collected in July and those requested in August.
> >
>
> see above.......there are two paper trails to follow "dependency" and
"discharge".
> Both because of the conflict of interest, counter each other and show that
things
> are not "kosher".......I honestly believe that the whole process of
seperation was
> "overkill"

Meaning "top priority" was given to getting Lee out 90 days early -
probably by someone with a military legal background who addressed the
problem from more than one direction and simultaneously.

>and not needed.....but then one has to consider other factors, of which
there
> are alot missing. We just do not have "access" without a full
Congressional investigation
> into key areas.
>
> jko
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > ::Clark::
> >
>
>
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 14 Oct 2004 01:00:29 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416b29e3@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> How the dependency discharge became the "Hardship" discharge.
>
> This element of Oswald's background is critical.
>
> To catch some up, in 1959 a wittness, that knew the individual for a
> period of at least two years, had to sign a passport application, there
> was nobody Lee could have sign and verify Oswald was who he indicated he
> was......so he had the USMC verify....and since Lt. Ayers was the
> personnel officer handling Lee's seperation, he was the wittness.
>
> On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be "the
> wittness" for Lee's passport,

Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for who
Oswald was?


> dropped the "dependency" and replaced the
> grounds as "hardship" simple and without question......since he was the
> last man in the chain at that duty station. Those who were connected to
> the discharge board were no longer involved. He is the only one in
> position to act "By direction".
>
> Lee was seperated the day before on the 11th, he was gone, the Service
> Record would go forward and now Lee Harvey Oswald, would NOT BE recalled

But LHO, who left the day before, thinks he has a "dependency discharge".
He would not know this change had been made.

Lee believes he is in the Active Reserve, correct?


> to active duty because he had been seperated by a "Hardship Discharge".
> He would NOT BE assigned to any USMCR unit.

he was now actually an "Inactive Reservist" but he does not know this.

>
> However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September, 1959 in
> the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made....

There are no "mistakes" made in Lee's reserve status.

>...in
> processing Lee's records they went to the "Ready Reserve"
> section.....which meant he could be recalled to AD at anytime up to the
> age of 35.

JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are being
handled in accordance with that belief.

Lee continues to act as if he is the Ready Reserve while in the USSR,
seeking admittance to Patrice Lumumba University and avoiding the worker's
meetings, and preparing a list of answers to possible questions on his
return applicable to his imagined "Active Reserve" status.

> Now the issue becomes cloudy.......was Lee discharged for a
> hardship to take care of his mother or discharged to be recalled at any
> time after 11 September, 1959?

The records cover both.

> Considering the events that followed, Lee
> was discharged from his assignment on active duty in the USMC to a new
> assignment in the USMCR. Under the law Lee could have been seperated and
> placed on "detail" for 120 to 180 days on a special
> assignment......normally called a "Presidential Detail", which can cover a
> number of tasks, where "one individual" is needed.

If Lee believes he is on such a "detail", he must believe he has a
"dependenct discharge" - which is what he was told on exiting the service.

However, the USMC can now deny any association with Lee to such a "detail"
as he is officially discharged for "hardship" and, therefore, "Inactive".
Plausible deniability.

>
> The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald, clearly
> support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.

"Active Reserve" - which his actions and planning show he believed himself
to be.

......not as a
> "Marxist Marine" bored with taking care of his mother, without a job, with
> no money and no future. He could not reach this point on his own.

But, on its own, the USMC has Oswald both ways. Telling him he's in the
"Active Reserve" and filing him as such when, in fact, the USMC has the
ability to deny, at all points in time, that Lee is in the "Active
Reserves" and, therefore, not on "detail" to the USSR.

But Lee believes he is.


>
> I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied them to
> what actually took place.

I'm sure it took time.
Your work is appreciated by me. You know that.


>
> jko




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 14 Oct 2004 11:26:34 -0400


Clark:

"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mrupopg2d8kd0@corp.supernews.com...

> > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be "the
> > wittness" for Lee's passport,
>
> Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for who
> Oswald was?
>

No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The point
beingLee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the USMC.
But there'smore to consider. The USMC could have issued Lee a "no fee"
passport, but no application was made to do so. The reason can only be to
keep Lee's travel plans "on his own" without assistance. To indicate that the
USMC had no idea he was planning to go to the USSR. At the time, there
was no fear of disclosure, because nobody would find out and if they
did......so what, many individuals get passports while in the service. It was the
conflict of a wittness and the available "no fee" passport that showed me that
the USMC was "aware of Lee's plans" that matters. Not all of the USMC had to know......but the
"wittness" did. Since this wittness would be the "final endorsement"
of the discharge, it means he supported the plan and was in the loop.


>
> > dropped the "dependency" and replaced the
> > grounds as "hardship" simple and without question......since he was the
> > last man in the chain at that duty station. Those who were connected to
> > the discharge board were no longer involved. He is the only one in
> > position to act "By direction".
> >
> > Lee was seperated the day before on the 11th, he was gone, the Service
> > Record would go forward and now Lee Harvey Oswald, would NOT BE recalled
>
> But LHO, who left the day before, thinks he has a "dependency discharge".
> He would not know this change had been made.

Clark: IMHO there was no "discharge" Lee was still on Active Duty and would
be until at least July 25, 1962.........with a possible one year extension to
July 25, 1963.
I'm sure you will remember the various areas I've mentioned 25 July, 1963,
especially in relationship to the USMC........he's discharged.

Proving this or disproving it requires that Congressional investigation. I do
have several considerations of this "Active Duty" in support, but being
ON ACTIVE DUTY is not critical. There was a "Program" in effect under
the law to send former military NCO's to various areas, so it's really not key
that he was on AD but it's the most logical consideration. The program exsists
so Lee could have been AD, Ready Reserve or out all together, all have to
be examined equally, but they are not presented as being investigated. They
wanted to show Lee "discharged" as a "Marxist Marine".

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 89 - VOLUNTEERS INVESTING IN PEACE AND SECURITY

§ 1801. Volunteer program to assist independent states of the former Soviet Union
The Secretary of Defense may, in coordination with the Secretary of State, carry out a program in
accordance with this chapter to provide technical assistance to address the infrastructure needs
of the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Assistance under the program shall be
provided by volunteers who are retired members of the armed forces, or who are former members of
the armed forces, who have been recently released from active duty.

Now, after reading the above.......consider that the country is not "of the former"
but the Soviet Union. Lee offers to "provide technical assistance" and he has
been recently released from active duty. The mythical "False Defector Program"
that CT's could not support is supported by the law. It all depends on the "task"
and the need. In this case Lee is the "perfect" individual to do the job........he is
not the "super spy"......but meets all the qualifications and background needed,
going all the way back to a job as a kid as a "courier".

>
> Lee believes he is in the Active Reserve, correct?

Lee is still on Active Duty, and has been "before" his presented enlistment.
Consider "delayed entry", to prepare, by studying Marine Corps Manual's for
his role starting with his "enlistment". This explains alot of things avoided.
Reading manuals....presented as being provided by his brother, but I believe
otherwise. The conflict over the fingerprints and SN, getting into a school that
he was unqualified to attend....and the "false statements" made in obtaining
permission to enlist.

>
>
> > to active duty because he had been seperated by a "Hardship Discharge".
> > He would NOT BE assigned to any USMCR unit.
>
> he was now actually an "Inactive Reservist" but he does not know this.
>

The "Service Records" Clark........are the key. The records will have him as
a hardship discharge......his actual status, imo is still on active duty. The records
were sent through the Ready Reserve section.......imo in the wrong Naval District.
This prevents access or allows for delay. The whole process is to keep Lee out
of the system, but still in the system.......just smoke and mirrors.

> >
> > However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September, 1959 in
> > the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made....
>
> There are no "mistakes" made in Lee's reserve status.

The mistakes allowed me to consider all the "alternate considerations". Things that
don't fit are the "mistakes".


>
> >...in
> > processing Lee's records they went to the "Ready Reserve"
> > section.....which meant he could be recalled to AD at anytime up to the
> > age of 35.
>
> JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are being
> handled in accordance with that belief.

No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact. He has to
be for the USG to actually act in his behalf as they did. If he was not, none of
the things done to get him and his family back would have been done. He
would have been prosecuted.

>
> Lee continues to act as if he is the Ready Reserve while in the USSR,
> seeking admittance to Patrice Lumumba University and avoiding the worker's
> meetings, and preparing a list of answers to possible questions on his
> return applicable to his imagined "Active Reserve" status.

Lee's cover is that he is "seperated" (by hardship) and he maintains that role.
He needs that cover to be "accepted".

>
> > Now the issue becomes cloudy.......was Lee discharged for a
> > hardship to take care of his mother or discharged to be recalled at any
> > time after 11 September, 1959?
>
> The records cover both.
>

His cover is established and hidden.

> > Considering the events that followed, Lee
> > was discharged from his assignment on active duty in the USMC to a new
> > assignment in the USMCR. Under the law Lee could have been seperated and
> > placed on "detail" for 120 to 180 days on a special
> > assignment......normally called a "Presidential Detail", which can cover a
> > number of tasks, where "one individual" is needed.
>
> If Lee believes he is on such a "detail", he must believe he has a
> "dependenct discharge" - which is what he was told on exiting the service.
>
> However, the USMC can now deny any association with Lee to such a "detail"
> as he is officially discharged for "hardship" and, therefore, "Inactive".
> Plausible deniability.
>

You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....however you did not miss
the "PD".

* UNITED STATES CODE
o TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
+ PART III - EMPLOYEES
+ Subpart B - Employment and Retention
+ CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
+ SUBCHAPTER III - DETAILS

§ 3341. Details; within Executive or military departments

* (a) The head of an Executive department or military department may
detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department,
except employees who are required by law to be exclusively engaged on
some specific work.
* (b) Details under subsection (a) of this section may be made only by
written order of the head of the department, and may be for not more
than 120 days. These details may be renewed by written order of the
head of the department, in each particular case, for periods not
exceeding 120 days.


> >
> > The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald, clearly
> > support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.
>
> "Active Reserve" - which his actions and planning show he believed himself
> to be.
>

He was "Active".

> ......not as a
> > "Marxist Marine" bored with taking care of his mother, without a job, with
> > no money and no future. He could not reach this point on his own.
>
> But, on its own, the USMC has Oswald both ways. Telling him he's in the
> "Active Reserve" and filing him as such when, in fact, the USMC has the
> ability to deny, at all points in time, that Lee is in the "Active
> Reserves" and, therefore, not on "detail" to the USSR.
>
> But Lee believes he is.
>

Lee is not being used against his will. He has to be fully aware of his status and
the fact that for the most part he would be on his own.


> >
> > I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied them to
> > what actually took place.
>
> I'm sure it took time.
> Your work is appreciated by me. You know that.

There is still more that is always needed......and some of the ground work was to
write a "fictionial" account. So I worked off all the unsupported CT's and developed
one that is supported, by the law and known actions. I could push this as a major
CT........but I enjoy the challenge of proving myself wrong. I just thought that somebody
out there would be able to counter my findings "under the law"......but nobody seems
to be up to the task.

jko

>
>
> >
> > jko
>
>
>



From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 14 Oct 2004 11:26:46 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mr94gah9g1h25@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
>
> No problems yet.

> > >
> > > For early discharge - Yes.
> > > But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
> > > indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.
> >
> > The school issue and all the retated connections is where Greg's work
> comes in.
> > Because of the quality of his research, I don't get into the details in
> depth. His
> > connections are in my opinion of interest and need to be explored in
> greater detail.
> >
>
> I was going to bring them up next to show the pattern of how Lee was aided
> in entering the USSR. Maybe we should send him an E mail and let him
> present it?

I sent him a key last week and he might be busy, I was not up to finding what
he was looking for....but he might have greater access now, to some of the
areas he's researching. I hope the key worked for him as it is helping me.
I have some new stuff on Lamont and the Postmaster that I'm sure you and
he will find interesting. I have the Lamont material in hardback......didn't know
it, the Vol 381, Oct, Term 1964 reports of the Supreme Court was holding up
the books on a bookshelf, but I now have internet access to it.


>
> >
> > >
> > > Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain
> an
> > > early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.
> > >
> > > > I believe that things started
> > > > before 20 February, 1959.
> > >
> > > Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?
> >
> > It is around this time......off hand I'm not sure exactly....but could
> look it up.
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure it's this time.

I do too....but too busy to bother to look.

>
> The AS college app demonstrates Lee was aware of his "Active Reserve"
> status and need to be "in school" overseas. Since his early discharge
> placed him in the "Inactive Reserve", no need to be "in school" existed
> afer September, 1959.
>
> He evidently had been expecting to be in the "Active Reserves" while in
> the USSR - which again means that, at the time of his ASDC app, he was
> expecting a December, 1959 discharge date and not an early discharge. I'll
> refer to this as the "Stage 1" plan.
>
> The early discharge represents a "change of plans" generated "top down".
> I'll refer to this as the "Stage 2" plan.
>

I follow you.....but I don't think we are on the same sheet of music. This is where
it's difficult presenting all the considerations at one time.



> > > > The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.
> > >
> > > I didn't know that.
> > >
> >
> > The CIA did and the plant production was of interest. The U.S. military
> was also
> > interested in Minsk. The Soviets followed the German production
> plan.....but after
> > the war. The plan can best be understood by reading "Why England Slept"
> by JFK.
> >
>
> By JFK?
> LOL!

JFK plays a major role, in several areas......however he had his own opinions
on what Ike started, once he became President. See his "Freedom from War"
UN speech and his objection to "mechanical monitoring" vs "in person inspection".
Ike was ok with the mechanical, JFK wanted inspectors. "WES" is a very good
book to gain insight into his thinking......and seeing that the USSR followed through
with "joint production" after the war I think others thought it was worth considering.
Some did not like it........or consider the value of JFK's pre WWII work.


> > > And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to Nixon's
> > > offer to "share ideas".
> > >
> >
> > I believe that the ground work was already a done deal.
>
> Yes. It has been in the making, as we both note, since at least February,
> 1959.

The Oswald ground work yes, but not the Open Skies/Soviet Space Science
exchanges at the high levels. Greater research is need here between some
of Greg's people of interest and these exchanges......but that's my opinion

>
> > I believe this 'handshake"
> > treaty was worked out during the Nixon/Niki "boat ride".
>
> I'm sure it was the major topic of conversation between them. However, a
> change of plan was introduced before June 1, 1959 on when Oswald was to
> leave, requiring his early discharge. So things had progressed to "stage
> 2" before Nixon and Kruschev ever met.

Not quite........the timeline is difficult to pinpoint exactly because data on when
the Soviets actually send the Sputnik research is not known, nor is there data
to see if there were other agreements, that "forced" Niki to send the material
or what exactly was taking place. The material was first published in 57 and 58,
but published in the U.S. "only" in 1959......actually this is where LBJ comes in.
I believe a program of exchange, was in effect as early as 1956. It's easier
to consider ongoing exchanges....and Oswald just playing a role in one.


> > Lee's departure however was during the public release of the first
> announcement
> > of the project Lee (in my opinion) was connected to. Project TP was a
> early warning
> > system, that the U.S. was to share with other nations. This was a "radar"
> project worked
> > on by the Navy R&D.
> >
>
> If public release of "Project TP" was moved up from a previously scheduled
> December, 1959 release, then that would explain why Lee's departure date
> was moved up also (Stage 1 going to Stage 2).
>

No......release was a seperate plan.......for public disclosure. When both sides
have the basics worked out the "public disclosure" is not a factor. But there are
some other considerations here dealing with "providing the Soviet" with info by
a "Marxist Marine" defector.


> >
> > The wheat deals played a major role in US/Soviet relations.
> >
>
> Yes. I was unaware of Project TP but realized LHO arrival coincides with
> an "information sharing" offer by Nixon. I had considered two
> possibilities - wheat science or space science. Wheat science was
> supported by Kruschev's trip to Iowa in September, 1959 while space
> programs were the established topic of the December, 1959 offer.
>
> But we both agree that Lee is part of the trade.

No, Lee is just a courier, no major role otherwise.


> >
> > The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of Naval
> Research.
> > It was made public August 7, 1959. In 1959 the Soviets sent us all of
> their reseach
> > on Sputnik "first" and when Nixon express his priviate "thanks" during his
> visit, TP was
> > "offered" to expand agreements. This fit in with Ike's Open Skies Treaty.
> I've mentioned
> > this in the past......it is the most logical connection to consider of all
> known intell operations,
> > connected to "joint" efforts, that the public was not fully aware of due,
> to public and political
> > concerns on both sides.
>
> "Joint" efforts obviously occurred but I believe Lee is a string attached
> to a deal - perhaps to TP.

In my opinion, there was a "new use" for Lee considered while he was first
in Moscow.....and they now had to "keep him" available......again a minor role
but one not first considered. I believe Lee might have been told to "suggest it"
because he was no "Super Spy" it was agreeable. If he was anyone but a
"young kid" he would never have been considered. I think the US felt that the
Soviets had to make the request in order to get Lee "inside deeper". If this
failed he would "go to school" and wait for the next assignment.


> > > >
> > > > Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even
> though
> > > > he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days
> were
> > > > up. Things had to change during that first week......
> > >
> > > I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to take a
> > > Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip.
> Further,
> > > his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to send a
> > > "message" concerning his status and where he was headed.
> >
> > The sucide attempt never took place.......it's pure and simple cover and a
> piss poor one
> > at that.
>
> The wrist scar was found during his autopsy - although I do not consider
> the attempt to be genuine. Is that what you mean?
>

Yep, I have a scar on my wrist almost equal to the one present connected to
the sucide.......(stab wound VN)......not related to any sucide but I can say anything
I want about it and how are you going to dispute it. The scar is there. Too many
conflicts surrounding this "sucide attempt" to accept.


> > > >for some reason Lee
> > > > was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee.
> For
> > > > example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
> > > > meetings.
> > >
> > > I thought he wasn't interested in attending?
> >
> > Attending, would be counter to regulations and laws that were being used
> against
> > POW's of the Korean War back in the U.S. at this time. It was a "tricky
> situation"
>
> Ahh! Brainwashing!
> So Lee could not attend the worker meetings or he would violate US law?

There were plans for Lee to return at some point.....attendance and actually
being part of the collective would cause "problems". Better to avoid it altogether,
which he did from day one.

>
>
> > and is a prime consideration in the aspects of "failure to prosecute"
> Oswald and his
> > citizenship status.
>
> One of many.

yep

>
> > There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
> > have been offically presented.
>
> That's why I wanted to bring up his ASC app.

To me ASC was a "fall back" assignment, since Lee would be "in country" anyway.
HOWEVER, this fall back assignment could have been exactly what Lee was first
selected for, the assignment that allowed for his consideration for this "defection".
It puts Lee into the system, without being involved in any other aspect of any
exchange......but puts him at the top of a very short list.

>
> >However, they never would have surfaced except for
> > Oswald's involvement in Novemeber of 1963.
>
> Agreed.
> And, when they surfaced, they became a problem for DOD and the AG.

"For Reasons of National Security"

>
> > But the USG could not present all of
> > the facts for reasons of National Security.
>
> It would have also screwed up the "Oswald was a loner" presentation.
> No one would have believed that one anymore.

If one looks at all the conflicts......Lee is anything but the loner presented, but
if you don't look.......the cover fits quite well.

>
> > The facts are out there and the surface
> > can be seen. However many of the confirmation details remain locked away
> or destroyed
> > as we know since my FOIA request established "criminal history records"
> were.
>
> Yes. We are left showing the possibilities and then showing how Lee's
> actions and the USG's actions fit those possibilities a mere 100% of the
> time.
>
>
Not a easy task........which is why I have no problem with being proven wrong, with
"equal" considerations.......not just what has been "presented".

jko

> ::Clark::




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 14 Oct 2004 22:07:56 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416e725a@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark:
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mrupopg2d8kd0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be "the
> > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> >
> > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for who
> > Oswald was?
> >
>
> No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The point
> being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the USMC.

Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers and he
would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I suppose
if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.

> But there's more to consider. The USMC could have issued Lee a "no fee"
> passport, but no application was made to do so. The reason can only be to
> keep Lee's travel plans "on his own" without assistance. To indicate that the
> USMC had no idea he was planning to go to the USSR.

Agreed - And changing his discharge from "Active reserve" to "Inactive
Reserve" was just one more step in that process.

> At the time, there
> was no fear of disclosure, because nobody would find out and if they
> did......so what, many individuals get passports while in the service. It was the
> conflict of a witness and the available "no fee" passport that showed me that
> the USMC was "aware of Lee's plans" that matters. Not all of the USMC had
to know......but the
> "wittness" did. Since this wittness would be the "final endorsement"
> of the discharge, it means he supported the plan and was in the loop.
>

He's in the loop two different ways - by acting as Oswald's "personal"
witness and by altering Lee's discharge from "Active" to "Inactive".


>
> >
> > > dropped the "dependency" and replaced the
> > > grounds as "hardship" simple and without question......since he was
the
> > > last man in the chain at that duty station. Those who were connected
to
> > > the discharge board were no longer involved. He is the only one in
> > > position to act "By direction".
> > >
> > > Lee was seperated the day before on the 11th, he was gone, the Service
> > > Record would go forward and now Lee Harvey Oswald, would NOT BE
recalled
> >
> > But LHO, who left the day before, thinks he has a "dependency
discharge".
> > He would not know this change had been made.
>
> Clark: IMHO there was no "discharge" Lee was still on Active Duty and
would
> be until at least July 25, 1962.........with a possible one year extension
to
> July 25, 1963.
> I'm sure you will remember the various areas I've mentioned 25 July, 1963,
> especially in relationship to the USMC........he's discharged.

You did mention it regarding Oswald in NO.

My own work agrees that Oswald's USMC status is "Active" while in the
USSR. I arrived at this conclusion by his own actions. He keeps trying to
fit into the passport laws for "Active Reservists".

For lurkers, "Active Reservists" in Oswald's day had to be available for
"recall" back to Active Duty in times of national emergency. If you were
overseas, you were beyond "recall". As my now questionable memory serves,
Active Reservists applying for passports for extended stays outside the US
was something of a no-no. The passport could be granted though for
extended overseas stays to an "Active reservist" if the purpose of the
trip was educational. For this reason, Oswald applied to attend the Albert
Schweitzer College in order to get his passport approved.

>
> Proving this or disproving it requires that Congressional investigation. I do
> have several considerations of this "Active Duty" in support, but being
> ON ACTIVE DUTY is not critical. There was a "Program" in effect under
> the law to send former military NCO's to various areas, so it's really not key
> that he was on AD but it's the most logical consideration.

According to Lee's behavior - he thinks so.

> The program exsists
> so Lee could have been AD, Ready Reserve

Lee believes he's one of the above two.

>or out all together,

Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay "legal"
all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.

> all have to
> be examined equally, but they are not presented as being investigated. They
> wanted to show Lee "discharged" as a "Marxist Marine".
>
> UNITED STATES CODE
> TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
> Subtitle A - General Military Law
> PART II - PERSONNEL
> CHAPTER 89 - VOLUNTEERS INVESTING IN PEACE AND SECURITY
>
> § 1801. Volunteer program to assist independent states of the former
Soviet Union
> The Secretary of Defense may, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, carry out a program in
> accordance with this chapter to provide technical assistance to address
the infrastructure needs
> of the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Assistance under
the program shall be
> provided by volunteers who are retired members of the armed forces, or
who are former members of
> the armed forces, who have been recently released from active duty.
>
> Now, after reading the above.......consider that the country is not "of
the former"
> but the Soviet Union. Lee offers to "provide technical assistance" and he
has
> been recently released from active duty. The mythical "False Defector
Program"
> that CT's could not support is supported by the law. It all depends on
the "task"
> and the need. In this case Lee is the "perfect" individual to do the
job........he is
> not the "super spy"......but meets all the qualifications and background
needed,
> going all the way back to a job as a kid as a "courier".
>
> >
> > Lee believes he is in the Active Reserve, correct?
>
> Lee is still on Active Duty, and has been "before" his presented
enlistment.
> Consider "delayed entry", to prepare, by studying Marine Corps Manual's
for
> his role starting with his "enlistment". This explains alot of things
avoided.
> Reading manuals....presented as being provided by his brother, but I
believe
> otherwise. The conflict over the fingerprints and SN, getting into a
school that
> he was unqualified to attend....and the "false statements" made in
obtaining
> permission to enlist.
>

Yes. Agreed - Although I don't think we can go into his enlistment in this
thread. I'm going to try and stay within his discharge status.


> >
> >
> > > to active duty because he had been seperated by a "Hardship
Discharge".
> > > He would NOT BE assigned to any USMCR unit.
> >
> > he was now actually an "Inactive Reservist" but he does not know this.
> >
>
> The "Service Records" Clark........are the key. The records will have him as
> a hardship discharge.....

But he thinks he has a "dependency discharge". The change to "hardship"
was made after he left. I don't think anyone wants Lee to know he has a
hardship discharge.


>.his actual status, imo is still on active duty. The records
> were sent through the Ready Reserve section.......imo in the wrong Naval District.
> This prevents access or allows for delay. The whole process is to keep Lee out
> of the system, but still in the system.......just smoke and mirrors.
>

I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If Lee
ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11, 1959.


> > >
> > > However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September,
1959 in
> > > the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made....
> >
> > There are no "mistakes" made in Lee's reserve status.
>
> The mistakes allowed me to consider all the "alternate considerations".
Things that
> don't fit are the "mistakes".
>

See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have hidden
from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
discharge.

He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding his
file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or "Ready
Reserve".

Lee will never be the wiser.

>
> >
> > >...in
> > > processing Lee's records they went to the "Ready Reserve"
> > > section.....which meant he could be recalled to AD at anytime up to
the
> > > age of 35.
> >
> > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are being
> > handled in accordance with that belief.
>
> No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.

His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent with
"Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.

> He has to
> be for the USG to actually act in his behalf as they did. If he was not, none of
> the things done to get him and his family back would have been done. He
> would have been prosecuted.

Of course - but we're jumping ahead in our conclusons. We're still in
September-December, 1959.

>
> >
> > Lee continues to act as if he is the Ready Reserve while in the USSR,
> > seeking admittance to Patrice Lumumba University and avoiding the worker's
> > meetings, and preparing a list of answers to possible questions on his
> > return applicable to his imagined "Active Reserve" status.
>
> Lee's cover is that he is "seperated" (by hardship) and he maintains that role.
> He needs that cover to be "accepted".
>

Yes and No. His cover is that he is separated by "dependency" - not
hardship. You can see it for yourself right here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0153b.htm

This is Lee telling Pricilla Johnson he has a "dependency discharge". This
is exactly the conditions he left the USMC on. The change by Ayers took
place the next day.

Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no matter
how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in the
USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the latter
can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").

Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it - requires
Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice Lumumba
University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?

Lee is obeying the rules. Our boy is COMING BACK. Here you can see where
Lee was negotiating with the Russians as early as November 12, 1959 to
continue his education "at a Soviet Institute."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm

Lee's plans to attend school at a Soviet institute is a legal requirement
he must meet. If not, he could be considered to be in violation of USC 909
of Title 37 which reads:

Title 37

§ 908. Employment of reserves and retired members by foreign governments

(a) Congressional consent. Subject to subsection (b), Congress consents
to the following persons accepting civil employment (and compensation for
that employment) for which the consent of Congress is required by the last
paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution, related to
acceptance of emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government:
(1) Retired members of the uniformed services.
(2) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
(3) Members of the Commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health
Service.

(b) Approval required. A person described in subsection (a) may accept
employment or compensation described in that subsection only if the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of State approve the employment.

If Lee ended up in "civil employment" in the USSR without the Secretary of
State's permission, he will be in violation of the law. BTW, item #2 above
should read "Active Reserve component".



Lee's application for Soviet citizenship is a sham. He's planning to come
back before he even gets there. You and I can, and will, demonstrate this
to be a sham over and over and over again.

Lee failed to mention in his interview

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm

that the US Embassy in Moscow, advised him on November 6 to come back
during normal business hours to sign the necessary forms to renounce his
citizenship (CE 919).

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0066a.htm

Instead, Lee ignored this letter in his interview and told her about his
original visit, stating, as CE 910 confirms, that the US Embassy "would
not allow me to act without confirmation of my Soviet citizenship. I
relinguished my passport and they said they would not act unless my Soviet
citizenship was confirmed."

Almost a week had gone by since being invited back to sign the forms. Yet
Lee didn't go back and failed to acknowledge the invitation. Here's the
explanation he gave to Priscilla Johnson for not going back:

He was "bitter towards Richard Snyder, who, he charges, stalled him when
he asked to take the oath on Oct 31, only time Lee's been at the Embassy.
As a result, Lee won't go back there."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0154b.htm

Lee has retained his US citizenship, believes he has an "Active" status with
the USMC, and abides by the regulations for such "Active" status.

Lee is planning to come home. Even Priscilla Johnson suspected this,
advising Richard Snyder that Lee had "left the door open" to return (page
289, Vol XX).

She could only say this if she she knew Lee had not renounced his Ameican
citizenship. Here, on Dec 5, 1963, she admits knowing just that:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm



> >
> > > Now the issue becomes cloudy.......was Lee discharged for a
> > > hardship to take care of his mother or discharged to be recalled at
any
> > > time after 11 September, 1959?
> >
> > The records cover both.
> >
>
> His cover is established and hidden.

Even from himself. If Lee ever tried to testify otherwise, the USMC could
state that Lee was lying, that he had never received a dependent's
discharge and that he was Inactive - not Active - when he went to the
USSR.

Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.

>
> > > Considering the events that followed, Lee
> > > was discharged from his assignment on active duty in the USMC to a new
> > > assignment in the USMCR. Under the law Lee could have been seperated
and
> > > placed on "detail" for 120 to 180 days on a special
> > > assignment......normally called a "Presidential Detail", which can
cover a
> > > number of tasks, where "one individual" is needed.
> >
> > If Lee believes he is on such a "detail", he must believe he has a
> > "dependenct discharge" - which is what he was told on exiting the
service.
> >
> > However, the USMC can now deny any association with Lee to such a
"detail"
> > as he is officially discharged for "hardship" and, therefore,
"Inactive".
> > Plausible deniability.
> >
>
> You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....

Lee did not miss this.

>however you did not miss
> the "PD".

Lee did.


>
> * UNITED STATES CODE
> o TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
> + PART III - EMPLOYEES
> + Subpart B - Employment and Retention
> + CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND
PLACEMENT
> + SUBCHAPTER III - DETAILS
>
> § 3341. Details; within Executive or military departments
>
> * (a) The head of an Executive department or military department may
> detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department,
> except employees who are required by law to be exclusively engaged on
> some specific work.
> * (b) Details under subsection (a) of this section may be made only by
> written order of the head of the department, and may be for not more
> than 120 days. These details may be renewed by written order of the
> head of the department, in each particular case, for periods not
> exceeding 120 days.
>

According to this, Lee's "detail" would expire in January, 1960. I expect
this is why you believe Lee's mission was to end in December, 1960 but
that something changed?

IMO, nothing changed. Lee is under "orders" until January, 1960 - or until
he gets his "resident visa". Once inside the USSR he is beyond "orders".
But, up until January 1960, he has his orders to obey. Lee must do as he's
told through January. If he doesn't obey orders and abscounds with $ 2500
of USG money, bad things will be waiting for him back in the US.
"Presidential detail" covers this period.

Once inside the USSR, his "presidential detail" commitment expires. But we
no longer need it then. The USMC just needs to make him obey orders until
he's inside - or until January, 1960. This corresponds to when Lee
received his temporary Russian visa.

Thus, there is no required connection between the length of Oswald's
"detail" and the length of his mission.

>
> > >
> > > The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald,
clearly
> > > support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.
> >
> > "Active Reserve" - which his actions and planning show he believed himself
> > to be.
> >
>
> He was "Active".

I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide that
he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
knowledge.


>
> > ......not as a
> > > "Marxist Marine" bored with taking care of his mother, without a job,
with
> > > no money and no future. He could not reach this point on his own.
> >
> > But, on its own, the USMC has Oswald both ways. Telling him he's in the
> > "Active Reserve" and filing him as such when, in fact, the USMC has the
> > ability to deny, at all points in time, that Lee is in the "Active
> > Reserves" and, therefore, not on "detail" to the USSR.
> >
> > But Lee believes he is.
> >
>
> Lee is not being used against his will. He has to be fully aware of his
status and
> the fact that for the most part he would be on his own.
>

Yes. He's a volunteer and he knows that, for the most part, he would be on
his own. I add though that he was not told that his discharge status had
been changed from "dependency" to "hardship". The effect of Lee believing
he has a "dependency discharge" is that he knows he can be recalled to
Active Duty. The only reason for him to be "recalled" would be to punish
him for not performing as required. Therefore, Lee is, in effect, under
orders the whole time he is in the USSR.

>
> > >
> > > I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied them
to
> > > what actually took place.
> >
> > I'm sure it took time.
> > Your work is appreciated by me. You know that.
>
> There is still more that is always needed......and some of the ground work
was to
> write a "fictionial" account. So I worked off all the unsupported CT's
and developed
> one that is supported, by the law and known actions. I could push this as
a major
> CT........but I enjoy the challenge of proving myself wrong. I just
thought that somebody
> out there would be able to counter my findings "under the law"......but
nobody seems
> to be up to the task.

Your work agrees with mine even though we took separate ways of getting
there.


::Clark::



From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 14 Oct 2004 22:13:18 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416e94f5@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark:
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mrq27pgetr2f9@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> >
> > For lurkers, "5412 subcommittee" came under the Special Group or Special
> > Group Augmented (SGA) which included the AG. Many rsearchers will be
> > familiar with the SGA for selecting targets inside Castro's Cuba.
>
> The 5412 Committee, had a subcommittee of which Papa Joe was part of.
> The 5412 Committee, is a part of Prouty's Secret Team, but his take is
wrong.
>
>
>
>
> > > > Yes. Lee has asked his mother to ask him.
> > > > When was his mother's "accident"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Her first Dr. visit to Dr. Hamilton was 20 Feb, 1959, however her
accident
> > happened
> > > 5 December, 1958.
> > >
> >
> > Ahhh! Feb 20, 1959 - the date you picked out for when Stage 2 begins
based
> > on Mrs. Oswald needing to become a "dependent" for Lee's discharge. You
> > don't have a 'stage 1". You're in "stage 2" from the beginning.
>
> I have all my "stages" together, it's just you don't have what I have to
work with.
> I don't break my work down on "stages".
>
> >
> > However, Mrs. Oswald never said there was anything phoney about this
> > accident and if there was never a "stage 1", Lee should have applied to
> > attend the fall semester at AS college and not spring.
>
> It all depends on when applications have to be made.......so I don't worry
about
> the school aspect, see another response on "fall back".
>
>
> > > snip
>
> > > >
> > > > If this "mistake" wasn't made, Lee would be subject to the 90 day
ruled
> > > > you cite below.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The 90 window is not really important, but it was the ground work in
> > working out
> > > all the conflicts from taking Lee's fingerprint record and assignment
of a
> > service
> > > number, prior to getting "permission to enlist" to his discharge.
This
> > shows Lee's
> > > enlistment from start to finish is in conflict with the presented
history.
> > >
> >
> > That's right. We've left out Lee's enlistment app from the discussion -
a
> > major "red herring".
> >
>
> It's needed but not in this thread.
>
>
> > But I consider the 90 day window to be imporant because his release date
> > hits it "dead on".
> >
>
> It works many ways......including in support of the "Offical History".
>
>
> > > >
> > > > That would correspond to about September 8, 1959.
> > > > Looks like somebody knew the rule.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There were no grounds or need to go outside of it "offically". The
ball
> > park date was
> > > around the 7th or 8th.....but I really think there was a "saftey
factor"
> > plus or minus a
> > > few days, here. The 11th of Sepetmber discharge was well within the
> > timeframe needed.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly. Unless you want to poull out a calander for December 8, 1959
and
> > count back 90 days, a September 11 release should meet the 90 day
> > critieria.
>
> But there is the factor of bad days.....the time lost during his brig
time. But
> that needs a seperate thread......and the FOIA request shows that it is
now
> impossible to get to the truth on "time lost".
>
> >
> > But, once again, I argue this is a change in plan. All of Lee's
planning,
> > schoolwise (Including Patrice Lumumba University) fits into his being
> > discharged with an "Active Reserve" status. He is clearly unaware, on
Sept
> > 11, that he now has"Inactive Reserve" status as he heads to the USSR.
For
> > example, as an "Inactive Reservist", could he not have attended the
> > workers meetings? And requesting attendance at Patrice Lumumba
University
> > would no longer be necessary. The questions he prepped himself for on
> > returning also reflect "Active Reserve" thinking.
>
> I think you are putting too much into the status.......in the wrong
ways....but
> I know you are just trying to figure it out. There are four ways that all
of this
> has to be considered.
>
> 1. Seperated on his own
> 2. Seperated as "Inactive" due to hardship
> 3. Seperated as a member of the Ready Reserve
> 4. Still on Active Duty
>
> Still on AD covers all known actions.
>

Certainly by Lee.


> >
> > If Lee planned early discharge since Feb 20, 1959, one would think he
> > would know he was headed to the Inactive Reserve versus Active. The
whole
> > ASC thing becomes unnecessary if he's "Inactive", correct? But if he was
> > planning a December discharge back in February, 1959, then "Active
> > Reserve" and the ASC app become required thinking.
> >
> > Not trying to prove you wrong - just showing why I follow this path.
>
> The "status" is only for his background.....not part of any consideration
directly
> in going.......Lee just followed his training and the laws avoiding be
part of the
> "collective". Like going to Cuba.....he had no desire.....and by not
attending
> the classes for workers, or active in the study of "Marxism"......he
avoids problems
> in being able to return....nobody would care if there was no "evidence" of
his
> learning or being part of communisum.
>
> > >
> > > Yep......as well as all the "extra" data sent prior to the July 31 LOI
to
> > Mrs. Oswald.
> > > But NOBODY would have bothered with this....if not for November 1963.
The
> > info
> > > could NOT BE covered up......just "ignored".....by putting out the
basic
> > details, but
> > > not the key considerations of how everything fit together. Sort of
hiding
> > it out in the
> > > open. Too much for the average person to even bother with.
> > >
> >
> > But it's now a smoking gun.
> >
>
> No sure if it is "the smoking gun" but enough to work on.
>
>
> > > The data was collected......for whatever reason, but to me it's just
> > background
> > > cover that was just to establish a need......that would not have
mattered
> > one way
> > > or another if it was used or not.
> >
> > Correct. Lee could say he needed an early discharge to tell jokes to his
> > mother to help alleviate her physical suffering and his discharge would
> > have been approved.
> >
>
> yep
>
> > > Lee would be seperated from his active duty
> > > assignment one way or another. Only the offically requested data,
after
> > the
> > > 31 July LOI (letter of instruction) would be legal evidence. But some
key
> > element of
> > > "confirmation" is missing......care to guess what? Here's a
clue......the
> > Red Cross/Red Cresent.
> > > The early letters, show prior knowledge of what "would be" required
and
> > > that I think is more important then the content or use of these early
> > letters.
> >
> > It comes close to avoiding the Letter of instruction sent to Mrs. Oswald
> > though for more info. It shows Lee had knowledge of what would be asked
> > for and sought to provide it before it was asked for.
> >
>
> yep
>
> >
> > > Like I
> > > said.......NOBODY would bother with a detailed background check for
any
> > reason.
> > >
> >
> > I think that might have drawn Poindexter's ire...
> >
>
> Wrong Poindexter in my opinion. J. W. Poindexter was only the first
endorsement,
> not the last.
>

I show him as a Lt. Colonel in 1951.
Not a big enough fish at that time.
What was his rank in 1959?

>
> >
> > > As a side note for you to consider......would $91.30 equal the money
given
> > Oswald
> > > in the USSR for "quarters allowence?" To make his stay in the USSR
> > easier? The
> > > payment was authorized 30 September "By direction" (M. H. Insley).
> > However
> > > the person or office the "direction" is given is crossed out, in the
doc I
> > have.
> >
> > Interesting thought.
> >
> > However, I've calculated the amount of money Lee was given to pay for
the
> > trip, versus what he had, and came up with exactly $ 2,500.00 (Or maybe
it
> > was exactly $ 1,500.00? There's that memory problem I warned you
> > about...). The even dollar amount is suspicious...
>
> This is money that the Red Cresent gave Lee while he was in Minsk, not the
> money for the trip. Offical confirmation of dependency or hardship has to
come
> from the Red Cross......there is no Red Cross confirmation in the
papertrail.
>

WOW!
How did you even THINK to make that connection?

> >
> >
> > >
> > > I've never presented this factor of consideration before to anybody.
> >
> > I've never bothered to find out what Lee's hotel bill was.
> >
>
> that's another issue.....
>
>
>
> > > > Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of
Aug
> > > > 24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).
> > >
> > > Don't worry about Poindexter.......you might have the wrong one in
mind,
> > > the only consideration that is important is that these endorsements
went
> > > ahead of the material needed in support......ie the September
material.
> > >
> >
> > That was my point...
>
> ok
>
>
> > >
> > > This is a key issue, and it will be difficult to show correctly and in
> > detail here. But here
> > > is the basics. The sworn affidavits are made in the end of
July....all
> > requesting
> > > discharge, not dependency allotment.
> >
> > For lurkers, the affidavits for discharge are being collected in July
> > before they were even requested. And the "dependency allotment" is a
> > necessary step to obtaining a "dependency early discharge".
>
> yep
>
>
> > > In July all these statement would all be directed to Major Cooley,
Head of
> > the Benefits Section,
> > > since no formal request for discharge had been made as of yet (17
August)
> >
> > For lurkers, Cooley has received affidavits that do not match Lee's
> > request for a "dependency allotment".
>
> yep
>
> >
> > >
> > > Mrs. Oswald has to fill out a "Parent's Dependency Affidavit" and that
was
> > sent out 31 July, 1959.
> > >
> > > Lee had to be "instructed" on what to obtain.....for both the
"dependency"
> > and "discharge"
> > > at the same time.
> >
> > An attempt to save time in order to get Lee out of the USMC as quickly
as
> > the 90 day rule will allow.
>
> It's hard to say it was to save time......but the two papertrails are
there and they
> conflict.
>

You're right. Maybe it wasn't to save time.
Maybe it was to create dual paper trails.
One for Oswald.
And one for the USMC.

>
> >
> > > MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Two requests were being made
> > > that counter each other......all were "used" to seperate Lee early.
Lee's
> > request was a
> > > "offical" document, prepared by "office personnel" * Lee would have to
get
> > this instruction
> > > from "office personnel" or other sources. Since the two requests
> > conflict, chances are
> > > the instructions came from outside of the "chain".....ie other
sources.
> > However, both
> > > requests are being kept "seperate" and these people are "outside the
> > loop".
> >
> > Certainly the offiucer who requested more info on Aug 24 was "out of the
> > loop". In fact, the only people "in the loop" appear to be Oswald and
> > someone above, possibly Poindexter.
>
> Lt. Ayers......in my opinion is the man in the middle, insuring all the
paperwork
> is done and hidden if needed. Somebody has to direct the paper. Even he
does
> not have to know why.
>

Which brings me back to J.W. Poindexter's rank. A Lt. Colonel in 1951
could be out of the colonel business by 1959.

>
> > >
> > > It's a cluster of conflict and that's the basic consideration.
> > >
> > > snip
> >
> > If speed is the purpose with "aid" from above, all conflict is removed.
> >
>
> All the conflict is removed or at least put aside where nobody would look.
>
>
> > >
> > > There remain a few days plus or minus.......it's not vital to release
Lee
> > on any
> > > specific day as long as he is released before the ship sails.
> > >
> >
> > It's basic "need to know". No one informed our outsider aiding Oswald of
> > his ship sailing date, only that early discharge was a high priority to
> > accomplish. The person providing the aid aimed for the earliest
discharge
> > date possible - September 11 - And met it. Mission accomplished without
> > ever knowing what the mission is.
> >
>
> yep, that's how intelligence opeations work.
>
> > >
> > > They do.....it's just that there are other considerations that I
mention
> > above. There
> > > are two seperate "needs"........both in conflict. This is another
area
> > that I have not
> > > presented for discussion in the past......but I think you can see the
> > problem. The
> > > dependency has to be legally established before either the allotment
or
> > discharge.
> >
> > Correct.
> > They should occur one step at a time - not simultaneously.
> > However, if not handled simultaneously, Lee will miss his 9/11 discharge
> > date - probably by as much as 6 weeks or not until mid October.
> >
>
> The dependency should have been done first and seperate from the hardship
> discharge.......but then again nobody would look or care.
>
>
> > > It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the
> > "endoresements" of
> > > discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment is.
> > However, if Lee
> > > is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there?
> >
> > Through 9/11/59.
> >
>
> It was not approved until 30 September.....Lee was "out".

Which brings you to the Red Cross?

If so, brilliant thinking.

>
> > > The conflicts however would
> > > never see the light of day........EXCEPT for Oswald's involvement in
> > November, 1963.
> >
> > And there are more of these conflicts to come.
> >
> oh ya....plenty
> >
> > >
> > > Because there are "3 sons" and Lee is the youngest and the poorest,
the
> > sole
> > > responsibity of dependency ON HIM has to be covered before either the
> > discharge
> > > or the allotment can come into play.......which is only a small reason
why
> > things had
> > > to start "early" on. The accident was not serious......snotty
nose....
> > and I think it was
> > > used improperly.....but it would serve the purposes.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. It requires Lee had knowledge of the incident and shared it with
his
> > outside advisor on how to get an early discharge - or Lee is his own
USMC
> > legal expert.
> >
>
> In my opinion it's taking something that can work into the cover needed.
It's always
> best to base a lie on a true foundation......just make a few adjustments
here and there,
> and it's easy to be believed.
>
>
> > >
> > > Yes, Lee was informed well in advance, chances are when plans were
first
> > being
> > > worked out to see if he could be used.
> >
> > And more information is about to come Oswald's way regarding "US
> > citizenship".
>
> in another thread.....


Okay - but it pertains directly to September-December 1959.

>
>
>
> > > > > in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the
boarder.
> > He
> > > > > only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed
it
> > off.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Would this be the "free sharing of ideas" Nixon spoke of?
> > >
> > > Yep, based on the Soviets providing "Soviet Space Science" all the
> > research on Sputnik.
> > >
> >
> > In case Jeff Morely is reading, how would he confirm that?
>
> I have the confirmation of "Soviet Space Science". The material has been
in
> my possession for over 10 years. The Soviets wouldn't just give it away.
You
> have to remember cold war history and all the aspects of "The Big Red
Lie".
> At the time the Soviets were giving us this material LBJ and others were
presenting
> the "opposite" view of the Soviets only "taking" our technology......not
giving it to
> us.
>
>
> >
> > > Exactly.......just look at the defection of Petrulli......just before
Lee
> > entered.
> > > If they would not accept Petrulli, as a skilled metal worker, why take
a
> > suicidal
> > > youth and give him a "skilled metal workers" job......that Petrulli
was
> > qualified
> > > for. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
> > >
> >
> > Unless Lee is part of the "information trade" Nixon has arranged. In
which
> > case the Soviets have to let him in - but again - only on a "need to
know"
> > basis (Which reaches all the way up to the Supreme Soviet).
>
> Lee was not qualified to be part of the primary considerations of the
exchange
> but was on a very low level.....as a "operator".


Of the system being turned over?

>
>
> > > The KBG was the prime "objector" in all of this.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Internal Security.
> > To them, admitting Oswald was admitting a spy.
>
> Which is why a "low ranking radar operator" was used. There were two
PRIME
> DEFECTORS to handle the NSA stuff......people forget about these two guys.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Lee now heads over early and sits on ice at his Moscow hotel waiting
for
> > > > the December, 1959 deal to take place.
> > >
> > > I believe that the deal has already been made......while Lee was on
the
> > boat
> > > over.
> >
> > Or even earlier.
>
> No.......I believe key things had to be worked out....which is why a "slow
boat"
> was used......to allow some additional things to become final. Once the
> boat "arrived" things went very quickly.
>
>
> >
> > > To me the deal had to be made before Lee crossed the line into the
USSR.
> >
> > With Krushev - Yes.
> > With the KGB - No.
> >
>
> The person crossing the border had to be one that the KGB would approve
of.
>

Agreed. But I don't think KGB approval of Oswald was in place in September
- which may explain the "slow boat".

However, Richard Snyder noted Lee's Soviet visa had expired 5 days earlier
when Lee showed up at the US Embassy - And noted it was unusual for Lee
not to have already been carted across the border.


> > > The key here is the speed involved in getting Lee in. Afterwards
means
> > little to the
> > > original plan.
> > >
> >
> > I think "afterwards" means removing all the road blocks that every
Soviet
> > bureacrat "not in the loop" would immediately put in place against Lee.
> >
>
> They would remain out of the loop.....different system over there.....you
don't
> stick your nose into operations not directly of concern. You don't ask
questions.
>
> > > >
> > > > Lee sent a message, twice, to the US in December, 1959, stating not
only
> > > > that he had successfully gotten in, but where he was going.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct 31.
> >
> > I'll drag mine out and post them.
> > They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read them.
>
> The Oct 31 letter is the first........Snyder gives the message with "the
wrong address",
> which confirms Lee is who he is and all is well. The address in the
letter is not
> Lee's last known address....it is the address he lived at when he join the
USMCR.

Here is Lee getting a "message out" to the USG from his hotel in Moscow on
November 12-13, 1959.

On this date Priscilla Johnson interviewed Oswald. Her questioning focuses
on the reasons for his defection. Yet Lee was not interested in giving the
reasons for his "defection", having previously refused to be interviewed
by allother correspondents on that very subject.

Yet, suddenly, Lee not only agrees to be interviewed by her, he even goes
to her room for the interview. This stunned Priscilla Johnson, who noted
"He had refused to speak to any American correspondents. Just why he
answered when I knocked at his door and why, a few hours later, he came to
see me in my room, I never learned."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0155b.htm

Why did Lee grant the interview?

As I stated earlier, Lee provided two messages (Actually three but two
were repeat messages) to the US. Lee was providing an unwitting Priscilla
Johnson with a message for her to take back. Here is the message he gave
her as she wrote it:

"Even if I am not accepted (for Soviet citizenship), on no account will I
go back to the United States. I shall remain here, if necessary, as a
resident alien" All Soviet officials would promise at the time was that
Lee could stay on in Russia whether or not he became a citizen.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0155b.htm

As soon as Priscilla Johnson printed the story, the USG knew that Lee had
"gotten in" - if only as a resident alien.

Lee, the "Active" Marine, had just reported his success on gaining entry
to the USSR. The person sending Johnson to see Oswald is Snyder. Oswald
refuses all other interviews, and surprises Johnson when he accepts hers.

Johnson then went back and reported to Snyder the interview (Vol 20, page
289).

Snyder now knew that Lee had been granted access to the USSR. Yet Snyder
sends no cable to State advising them of this until December 1 - And then
only to advise State that Lee had left Moscow with no mention of his being
granted "resident alien" status.

Snyder is not working for State on this case

I have two more duplicate messages he (Oswald) also sent from his hotel.


>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > I think trans-Atlantic air travel was very, very expensive in 1959,
> > > > although the USG certainly could have afforded to pay his airfare. I
> > don't
> > > > know why they didn't. I can see why they didn't let him take a
military
> > > > flight - a rather embarrassing means for a planned "defector" to
reach
> > the
> > > > USSR if revealed.
> > >
> > > Lee might have flown military once over and off the ship.....I'm still
> > working on
> > > that and do have a plan to do more work in England next year. My son
is
> > there
> > > now in the Air Force. Mike and I are going to get drunk at least one
day
> > while I'm
> > > there.
> >
> > He "might" have based upon his passport stamp dates.
>
> Alot of conflicts with that passport.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > I see Lee as being put on a budget and given a destination.
> > >
> > > See the added consideration on the $91.30.......I don't think anyone
ever
> > even
> > > considered that "alternate consideration".
> >
> > I hadn't.
> >
> It' s just about the right amount
>

It sure is...
I'm still amazed you made that connection.

>
> > > >
> > > > Without these two, Lee would have been escorted to the nearest
border
> > and
> > > > dumped.
> > > >
> > > If Lee was acting as presented in the offical version of events. The
> > Soviets would
> > > have no choice but to kick Lee out the day his 6 day visa expired.
> >
> > And without his request ever reaching the Supreme Soviet.
>
> yep
>
>
> >
> > Lee gained entry to the US Embassy to Snyder when it was closed.
> > I will show more to show Snyder's involvement as we get there.
>
> Snyder's action have nothing to do with the early discharge......so it
should be
> seperate.
>

OK. But I promised I'd share that Oswald sent messages - one of which went
to Snyder - that are not in the official record. So I included one above.

>
> >
> > Snyder returned Lee's passport to him and then asked for permission from
> > State to do so AFTER the fact.
> > Check the dates.
>
> There far more to consider......but not in this thread at this time.

Agreed.

>
>
> > > see above.......there are two paper trails to follow "dependency" and
> > "discharge".
> > > Both because of the conflict of interest, counter each other and show
that
> > things
> > > are not "kosher".......I honestly believe that the whole process of
> > seperation was
> > > "overkill"
> >
> > Meaning "top priority" was given to getting Lee out 90 days early -
> > probably by someone with a military legal background who addressed the
> > problem from more than one direction and simultaneously.
>
> Lee could not do it alone......based on how it is presented in the offical
history.
>

How do we rule that out that he 1) Didn't go see the base legal attorney
for his help 2) Didn't research the codes himself?

Not that I'm arguing. My proof that Lee couldn't act alone is while he's
in the USSR - not in his method of obtaining his discharge.

Again, let's assume Morely is reading this (I sent him an e mail on this
but he's slow on opening and reading them.).


::Clark::


From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 15 Oct 2004 17:28:43 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416e725e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mr94gah9g1h25@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
> >
> I have some new stuff on Lamont and the Postmaster that I'm sure you and
> he will find interesting. I have the Lamont material in
hardback......didn't know
> it, the Vol 381, Oct, Term 1964 reports of the Supreme Court was holding
up
> the books on a bookshelf, but I now have internet access to it.
>

Corlis Lamont?
Who is the "Postmaster"?


>
> >
> > The AS college app demonstrates Lee was aware of his "Active Reserve"
> > status and need to be "in school" overseas. Since his early discharge
> > placed him in the "Inactive Reserve", no need to be "in school" existed
> > afer September, 1959.
> >
> > He evidently had been expecting to be in the "Active Reserves" while in
> > the USSR - which again means that, at the time of his ASC app, he was
> > expecting a December, 1959 discharge date and not an early discharge.
I'll
> > refer to this as the "Stage 1" plan.
> >
> > The early discharge represents a "change of plans" generated "top down".
> > I'll refer to this as the "Stage 2" plan.
> >
>
> I follow you.....but I don't think we are on the same sheet of music.
This is where
> it's difficult presenting all the considerations at one time.
>

No. We're on different pages here. But that's not a problem. Lt. Ayers
actions on September 12 bring us both to the exact same point regardless of
the number of "stages" to get there.


>
>
> > > > > The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military
use.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The CIA did and the plant production was of interest. The U.S.
military
> > was also
> > > interested in Minsk. The Soviets followed the German production
> > plan.....but after
> > > the war. The plan can best be understood by reading "Why England
Slept"
> > by JFK.
> > >
> >
> > By JFK?
> > LOL!
>
> JFK plays a major role, in several areas.

Particularly in his choice of an AG who also sits on SGA.
Talk about a power position...

>.....however he had his own opinions
> on what Ike started, once he became President. See his "Freedom from War"
> UN speech and his objection to "mechanical monitoring" vs "in person
inspection".
> Ike was ok with the mechanical, JFK wanted inspectors. "WES" is a very
good
> book to gain insight into his thinking......and seeing that the USSR
followed through
> with "joint production" after the war I think others thought it was worth
considering.
> Some did not like it........or consider the value of JFK's pre WWII work.
>
>
> > > > And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to
Nixon's
> > > > offer to "share ideas".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe that the ground work was already a done deal.
> >
> > Yes. It has been in the making, as we both note, since at least
February,
> > 1959.
>
> The Oswald ground work yes, but not the Open Skies/Soviet Space Science
> exchanges at the high levels. Greater research is need here between some
> of Greg's people of interest and these exchanges......but that's my
opinion
>
> >
> > > I believe this 'handshake"
> > > treaty was worked out during the Nixon/Niki "boat ride".
> >
> > I'm sure it was the major topic of conversation between them. However, a
> > change of plan was introduced before June 1, 1959 on when Oswald was to
> > leave, requiring his early discharge. So things had progressed to "stage
> > 2" before Nixon and Kruschev ever met.
>
> Not quite........the timeline is difficult to pinpoint exactly because
data on when
> the Soviets actually send the Sputnik research is not known, nor is there
data
> to see if there were other agreements, that "forced" Niki to send the
material
> or what exactly was taking place. The material was first published in 57
and 58,
> but published in the U.S. "only" in 1959......actually this is where LBJ
comes in.
> I believe a program of exchange, was in effect as early as 1956. It's
easier
> to consider ongoing exchanges....and Oswald just playing a role in one.
>

Agreed that Oswald is a participant to just a single exchange - and possibly
just an "add on". But he's not a "last minute" add on. He has been preparing
since at least February, 1959.

>
> > > Lee's departure however was during the public release of the first
> > announcement
> > > of the project Lee (in my opinion) was connected to. Project TP was a
> > early warning
> > > system, that the U.S. was to share with other nations. This was a
"radar"
> > project worked
> > > on by the Navy R&D.
> > >
> >
> > If public release of "Project TP" was moved up from a previously
scheduled
> > December, 1959 release, then that would explain why Lee's departure date
> > was moved up also (Stage 1 going to Stage 2).
> >
>
> No......release was a seperate plan.......for public disclosure. When
both sides
> have the basics worked out the "public disclosure" is not a factor.

Agreed. Brain fart on my part.

> But there are
> some other considerations here dealing with "providing the Soviet" with
info by
> a "Marxist Marine" defector.
>

We have Lee openly offering the USSR his radar knowledge - And the USMC
knowing he's going to make the offer via actions of Lt. Ayers. So
"information sharing" is going to occur without the knowledge of the rest of
the American "establishment".
It will be appear to the US establishment the info was delivered by a
"defector" instead of by the Special Group.
And the Russians know the info is coming.


>
> > >
> > > The wheat deals played a major role in US/Soviet relations.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. I was unaware of Project TP but realized LHO arrival coincides with
> > an "information sharing" offer by Nixon. I had considered two
> > possibilities - wheat science or space science. Wheat science was
> > supported by Kruschev's trip to Iowa in September, 1959 while space
> > programs were the established topic of the December, 1959 offer.
> >
> > But we both agree that Lee is part of the trade.
>
> No, Lee is just a courier, no major role otherwise.
>

The moment Lee walks into the USEMB Moscow on Oct 31, 1959 he is no longer a
"courier".

Assume Lee arrives in Moscow as a courier only and makes his delivery. Then,
suddenly, a change of plan occurs. The support for this is that Lee has
walked into the USEMB with an expired Soviet visa. If Lee entered Moscow to
"defect" - why hasn't he entered the USEMB before his visa expired? And why
have the Russians not already carted him off?

Allow me to conclude you're suggesting somethng like that the "delivery"
Oswald made was not of a material item, but of knowledge - such as
operational knowledge. The Russians expect to debrief him of that knowledge
and then send him back. But they soon find the debriefing is much more
complex than they expected. It runs past Lee's visa expiration date which
the Russians must now ignore and continue to allow him to stay as the
debriefing continues. Finally, the Russians realize the only way to get the
info in a correct and understandable manner, is to allow Lee to stay (Which
raises the KGB suspicion that Lee is a spy). Lee is therefore granted a one
year visa.

Do I believe this? No.

Lee does not have to walk into the USEMB at all in the above scenario. The
Russians can grant Lee a one year visa without Lee ever seeing Snyder. Lee's
passport is good for two years. So Lee does not need to renounce his US
citizenship. Nor is there any reason for him to announce that he intends to
give the Soviets his radar knowledge. Neither of these actions are of any
value if the Russians have already agreed to take Lee. There are only useful
if they have not.

Snyder's planning for Lee's return began three days before Lee even entered
the USEMB to renounce his citizenship. On Oct 28, 1959 Snyder informed Mr.
Boster of his intention, which he "had so far taken" of not actively seeking
information from the Soviets on Americans who had accepted Soviet
citizenship - with the intention of deliberately not revoking that
American's citizenship "in order to leave such avenues to repatriation as
possible open to future contingency."

IOW, if word reached Snyder that Lee had taken Soviet citizenship, Snyder
would not seek confirmation of that fact from the Soviet authorities but
would, instead, continue to treat Lee as an American citizen (in direct
contradiction to regulations) in order to facilitate Lee's "future
repatriation" back to the US.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0062b.htm

In theory, if not fact, Lee did apply (and had already done so by the date
of this letter) for Soviet citizenship. Had Lee been granted his request by
the Soviets, Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship, as required by
law, but instead have "passively" waited for Lee to contact him regarding
his citizenship, which Lee did do, and then processed his return to the US
in spite of Lee having Soviet citizenship.

What we find then is that Lee is coming home even if the Soviets granted him
citizenship - And the plan to do this has been outlined three days before
Lee entered the US Embassy to renounce his American citizenship.

As you noted with Lt. Ayers being a party to Oswald's discharge status,
Snyder is a party to bringing Oswald back from the USSR. His plan to bring
Oswald back is in place before Oswald has even walked through the door.

For lurkers, James and I can present loads of evidence showing the USG
brought Lee back from the USSR and I will demonstrate that Snyder is
involved with every step.

For the moment, James and I have established that Lee's actions in avoiding
"political meetings" and applying to Patrice Lumumba University while in the
USSR are all related to his having an "Active" USMC status and that he is
PLANNING TO COME HOME from day one - And to avoid legal entanglements when
he does. To that, I have made the additional arguments that:

1) The USMC knew Lee would show up in the USEMB threatening to "share
knowledge" with the Soviets and, therefore, altered his discharge status on
September 12 in order to be able to claim Lee was not "Active" - and kept
this alteration a secret from Oswald.

2) That Snyder knew that Lee would show up in Moscow, requesting Soviet
citizenship, and that Snyder took pre-emptive action - in the event said
citizenship request was granted - not to revoke Lee's American citizenship,
even if the Soviets told him they had granted Lee Soviet citizenship and
even though regulations required that Snyder revoke Lee's American
citizenship if Lee obtained Soviet citizenship. Snyder's admitted goal for
doing this was to repatriate Oswald (or someone like him) back to the US.
Snyder developed this plan THREE DAYS before Oswald arrived at the USEMB.

3) That Lee Harvey Oswald sent a message to Snyder from his hotel, using
Priscilla Johnson as the courier, informing him that he had been granted a
Soviet visa to stay in the USSR.

One cannot expect James and I to agree on everything. The odds of that
happening are about the same as two composers going into separate rooms and
writing the same symphony. But we both know our notes and our instruments.
We know when something is in tune and when it is not.

The story we have been given of Lee's "defection" to the USSR is completely
out of tune with reality.

For JKO, IMO, Lee knows he's headed for the USEMB in Moscow when he bought
his ship ticket.



>
> > >
> > > The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of
Naval
> > Research.
> > > It was made public August 7, 1959.

His "Teepee" (TP) project was a radar eye that could spot a rocket blast
5000 miles away almost as soon as the missile leaves the ground. It was
tested in 1958.
Was Lee Harvey Oswald shown how to operate this radar? Or were the Russians
led to believe he knew how to operate it?


> > > In 1959 the Soviets sent us all of
> > their reseach
> > > on Sputnik "first" and when Nixon express his priviate "thanks" during
his
> > visit, TP was
> > > "offered" to expand agreements. This fit in with Ike's Open Skies
Treaty.
> > I've mentioned
> > > this in the past......it is the most logical connection to consider of
all
> > known intell operations,
> > > connected to "joint" efforts, that the public was not fully aware of
due,
> > to public and political
> > > concerns on both sides.
> >
> > "Joint" efforts obviously occurred but I believe Lee is a string
attached
> > to a deal - perhaps to TP.
>
> In my opinion, there was a "new use" for Lee considered while he was first
> in Moscow.....and they now had to "keep him" available......again a minor
role
> but one not first considered. I believe Lee might have been told to
"suggest it"
> because he was no "Super Spy" it was agreeable. If he was anyone but a
> "young kid" he would never have been considered. I think the US felt that
the
> Soviets had to make the request in order to get Lee "inside deeper". If
this
> failed he would "go to school" and wait for the next assignment.
>

I see it differently but James and I have agreed to disagree. Yet we both
agree that Lee had "help" in his discharge from the USMC and we both agree
that help included Lt. Ayers. We also agree that Lee was "Active" while in
the USSR. I also include Richard Snyder in assisting Oswald. JKO does not.


>
> > > > >
> > > > > Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even
> > though
> > > > > he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10
days
> > were
> > > > > up. Things had to change during that first week......
> > > >
> > > > I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to
take a
> > > > Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip.
> > Further,
> > > > his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to
send a
> > > > "message" concerning his status and where he was headed.
> > >
> > > The sucide attempt never took place.......it's pure and simple cover
and a
> > piss poor one
> > > at that.
> >
> > The wrist scar was found during his autopsy - although I do not consider
> > the attempt to be genuine. Is that what you mean?
> >
>
> Yep, I have a scar on my wrist almost equal to the one present connected
to
> the sucide.......(stab wound VN)......not related to any sucide but I can
say anything
> I want about it and how are you going to dispute it. The scar is there.
Too many
> conflicts surrounding this "sucide attempt" to accept.
>

JKO and I agree that Lee's "suicide" attempt was not genuine although I
believe Lee actually did cut his wrist for purposes of "show".


>
> > > > >for some reason Lee
> > > > > was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for
Lee.
> > For
> > > > > example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly
workers
> > > > > meetings.
> > > >
> > > > I thought he wasn't interested in attending?
> > >
> > > Attending, would be counter to regulations and laws that were being
used
> > against
> > > POW's of the Korean War back in the U.S. at this time. It was a
"tricky
> > situation"
> >
> > Ahh! Brainwashing!
> > So Lee could not attend the worker meetings or he would violate US law?
>
> There were plans for Lee to return at some point.....attendance and
actually
> being part of the collective would cause "problems". Better to avoid it
altogether,
> which he did from day one.
>

JKO and I both agree that there were plans for Lee to return to the US "at
some point". One can easily determine that "at some point" would have been
before Lee's passport expired.

> >
> >
> > > and is a prime consideration in the aspects of "failure to prosecute"
> > Oswald and his
> > > citizenship status.
> >
> > One of many.
>
> yep
>
> >
> > > There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
> > > have been offically presented.
> >
> > That's why I wanted to bring up his ASC app.
>
> To me ASC was a "fall back" assignment, since Lee would be "in country"
anyway.
> HOWEVER, this fall back assignment could have been exactly what Lee was
first
> selected for, the assignment that allowed for his consideration for this
"defection".
> It puts Lee into the system, without being involved in any other aspect of
any
> exchange......but puts him at the top of a very short list.
>

What JKO is referring to is that being enrolled at Albert Schweitzer College
allowed Lee, even if he never actually attended class, to be overseas for
"educational purposes". Lee could be almost anywhere in the world in 1960,
no questions asked. As I recall, ASC had been used by active reserve
officers as means to travel abroad on military assignments.



> >
> > >However, they never would have surfaced except for
> > > Oswald's involvement in Novemeber of 1963.
> >
> > Agreed.
> > And, when they surfaced, they became a problem for DOD and the AG.
>
> "For Reasons of National Security"
>
> >
> > > But the USG could not present all of
> > > the facts for reasons of National Security.
> >
> > It would have also screwed up the "Oswald was a loner" presentation.
> > No one would have believed that one anymore.
>
> If one looks at all the conflicts......Lee is anything but the loner
presented, but
> if you don't look.......the cover fits quite well.
>

This site is donated to that cover.


> >
> > > The facts are out there and the surface
> > > can be seen. However many of the confirmation details remain locked
away
> > or destroyed
> > > as we know since my FOIA request established "criminal history
records"
> > were.
> >
> > Yes. We are left showing the possibilities and then showing how Lee's
> > actions and the USG's actions fit those possibilities a mere 100% of the
> > time.
> >
> >
> Not a easy task........which is why I have no problem with being proven
wrong, with
> "equal" considerations.......not just what has been "presented".

If one of is prove wrong, either by the other or by a lurker, we're simply
narrowing down the possibilities all the more.


::Clark::


>
> jko
>
> > ::Clark::
>
>
>




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 15 Oct 2004 17:30:31 -0400


Clark:

"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
>

> > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be "the
> > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > >
> > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for who
> > > Oswald was?
> > >
> >
> > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The point
> > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the USMC.
>
> Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers and he
> would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I suppose
> if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.

Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years", however a statement from the USMC
would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged for by
the USMC would give indication of knowledge, so the normal channels of obtaining
a passport was used, however, its a simple matter to discover, if one looks. Almanacs,
which I collect, all have a section on passports and how to obtain them.


>
> > But there's more to consider. The USMC could have issued Lee a "no fee"
> > passport, but no application was made to do so. The reason can only be to
> > keep Lee's travel plans "on his own" without assistance. To indicate that the
> > USMC had no idea he was planning to go to the USSR.
>
> Agreed - And changing his discharge from "Active reserve" to "Inactive
> Reserve" was just one more step in that process.

There's more conflict with the handling of the records, but no need to go into
great detail.

>
> > At the time, there
> > was no fear of disclosure, because nobody would find out and if they
> > did......so what, many individuals get passports while in the service. It was the
> > conflict of a witness and the available "no fee" passport that showed me that
> > the USMC was "aware of Lee's plans" that matters. Not all of the USMC had
> to know......but the
> > "wittness" did. Since this wittness would be the "final endorsement"
> > of the discharge, it means he supported the plan and was in the loop.
> >
>
> He's in the loop two different ways - by acting as Oswald's "personal"
> witness and by altering Lee's discharge from "Active" to "Inactive".
>

Ayers, was the personnel officer, that "reviewed" and finalized on Service Records
at the base for Lees assigned unit. This is where the ONI stuck many officers.
IT IS NOT CONFIRMED, but I believe Ayers left this job shortly after and went to
a intelligence unit.....I can't even remember where exactly I learned this, but it
was either Epstein, Weisberg or Weberman.
>
> >

> > Clark: IMHO there was no "discharge" Lee was still on Active Duty and
> would
> > be until at least July 25, 1962.........with a possible one year extension
> to
> > July 25, 1963.
> > I'm sure you will remember the various areas I've mentioned 25 July, 1963,
> > especially in relationship to the USMC........he's discharged.
>
> You did mention it regarding Oswald in NO.

July 25, 1963 is when his USMC connection is ended......the last date of
appeal on his discharge.

>
> My own work agrees that Oswald's USMC status is "Active" while in the
> USSR. I arrived at this conclusion by his own actions. He keeps trying to
> fit into the passport laws for "Active Reservists".

There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports" and
"Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and after. BUT Lee
is not following the law here, there are some things you are overlooking.

>
> For lurkers, "Active Reservists" in Oswald's day had to be available for
> "recall" back to Active Duty in times of national emergency. If you were
> overseas, you were beyond "recall". As my now questionable memory serves,
> Active Reservists applying for passports for extended stays outside the US
> was something of a no-no. The passport could be granted though for
> extended overseas stays to an "Active reservist" if the purpose of the
> trip was educational. For this reason, Oswald applied to attend the Albert
> Schweitzer College in order to get his passport approved.
>

Theres more.....but the general details are enough.

> >
> > Proving this or disproving it requires that Congressional investigation. I do
> > have several considerations of this "Active Duty" in support, but being
> > ON ACTIVE DUTY is not critical. There was a "Program" in effect under
> > the law to send former military NCO's to various areas, so it's really not key
> > that he was on AD but it's the most logical consideration.
>
> According to Lee's behavior - he thinks so.

He would know his status......

>
> > The program exsists
> > so Lee could have been AD, Ready Reserve
>
> Lee believes he's one of the above two.
>
> >or out all together,
>
> Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay "legal"
> all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
>

NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations. If not
it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the beginin g......thatworks
as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own reasons,
while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't kill his
fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy. This is why WC supporters
should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
or being the actual assassin working on his own.

The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a threat
or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to accomplish
this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a consideration.
However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the defection
period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being screwed.

> > all have to
> > be examined equally, but they are not presented as being investigated. They
> > wanted to show Lee "discharged" as a "Marxist Marine".
>

snip

> >
> > The "Service Records" Clark........are the key. The records will have him as
> > a hardship discharge.....
>
> But he thinks he has a "dependency discharge". The change to "hardship"
> was made after he left. I don't think anyone wants Lee to know he has a
> hardship discharge.
>

Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a dependent, it
is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee needs to
take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of her bills.
Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about his mother
Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....all those that provided "support" by
affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and if they read the
newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem odd, strange
and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the "defection". She
provides the primary consideration, that either Lee is being "screwed" or "used"
and she is "abused" by the action. IF Lee was being "screwed" the USG would
have taken advantage of this effort on her part......to "prosecute" Lee.....but if
Lee was to be prosecuted so would she.......the catch 22 that finally shut her up.

>
> >.his actual status, imo is still on active duty. The records
> > were sent through the Ready Reserve section.......imo in the wrong Naval District.
> > This prevents access or allows for delay. The whole process is to keep Lee out
> > of the system, but still in the system.......just smoke and mirrors.
> >
>
> I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If Lee
> ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11, 1959.
>

You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a new
assignment. If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.

>
> > > >
> > > > However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September,
> 1959 in
> > > > the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made....
> > >
> > > There are no "mistakes" made in Lee's reserve status.
> >
> > The mistakes allowed me to consider all the "alternate considerations".
> Things that
> > don't fit are the "mistakes".
> >
>
> See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have hidden
> from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> discharge.

There is no need to hide anything from Lee.......if you feel Lee is acting on his
own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations mentioned. You
can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.

>
> He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding his
> file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or "Ready
> Reserve".
>
> Lee will never be the wiser.
>

Only if he is being "screwed". They could legally show him AWOL, or as a deserter
obtainiing a fraudulant seperation. Using his mother, which brings her into the law
as "aiding" this fraudulant seperation and subject to prosecution. If Lee was
"Active" he was wiser.


> > >
> > > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are being
> > > handled in accordance with that belief.
> >
> > No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.
>
> His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent with
> "Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.

Lee needs to continue the "cover" of educationial desires.....but he is no student.
It fits......but Lee does not act like any student, wishing to study the "Collective"
or even Marxism.

>
> > He has to
> > be for the USG to actually act in his behalf as they did. If he was not, none of
> > the things done to get him and his family back would have been done. He
> > would have been prosecuted.
>
> Of course - but we're jumping ahead in our conclusons. We're still in
> September-December, 1959.
>

I started this to show the conflicts of the discharge.....the return is just as
complex.

> >
> > >
> > > Lee continues to act as if he is the Ready Reserve while in the USSR,
> > > seeking admittance to Patrice Lumumba University and avoiding the worker's
> > > meetings, and preparing a list of answers to possible questions on his
> > > return applicable to his imagined "Active Reserve" status.
> >
> > Lee's cover is that he is "seperated" (by hardship) and he maintains that role.
> > He needs that cover to be "accepted".
> >

The whole thing stinks.......the "Collective" takes care of those that can't.....but
Lee does the opposite, and those that learn of how he handled his mother would
NOT BE accepting Lee......which is why Lee has a small circle of associates.
Easier to control, what they learn.

>
> Yes and No. His cover is that he is separated by "dependency" - not
> hardship. You can see it for yourself right here:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0153b.htm
>
> This is Lee telling Pricilla Johnson he has a "dependency discharge". This
> is exactly the conditions he left the USMC on. The change by Ayers took
> place the next day.
>
> Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no matter
> how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in the
> USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the latter
> can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").
>
> Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it - requires
> Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice Lumumba
> University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
> sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?

No, Lee has no interest in learning and his role does not require him to be
but it is "better" if he does nothing.....which he did. The Soviets, followed
through because of the possibility of "exposure" to other students of Lee
actual "beliefs" and political background. The failure to allow Lee to go
to school illustrates additional restricted co-operation by the Soviets.

>
> Lee is obeying the rules. Our boy is COMING BACK. Here you can see where
> Lee was negotiating with the Russians as early as November 12, 1959 to
> continue his education "at a Soviet Institute."
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
>
> Lee's plans to attend school at a Soviet institute is a legal requirement
> he must meet. If not, he could be considered to be in violation of USC 909
> of Title 37 which reads:
>
> Title 37
>
> § 908. Employment of reserves and retired members by foreign governments
>
> (a) Congressional consent. Subject to subsection (b), Congress consents
> to the following persons accepting civil employment (and compensation for
> that employment) for which the consent of Congress is required by the last
> paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution, related to
> acceptance of emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government:
> (1) Retired members of the uniformed services.
> (2) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
> (3) Members of the Commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health
> Service.
>
> (b) Approval required. A person described in subsection (a) may accept
> employment or compensation described in that subsection only if the
> Secretary concerned and the Secretary of State approve the employment.
>
> If Lee ended up in "civil employment" in the USSR without the Secretary of
> State's permission, he will be in violation of the law. BTW, item #2 above
> should read "Active Reserve component".
>

The above is a key consideration.........it also covers individuals in the NSTC,
National Security Training Corp of which I believe Lee is actual connected to.
See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
treason and aiding the enemy.

>
>
> Lee's application for Soviet citizenship is a sham. He's planning to come
> back before he even gets there. You and I can, and will, demonstrate this
> to be a sham over and over and over again.

There is more to support the "sham" then Lee acting on his own.

>
> Lee failed to mention in his interview
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
>
> that the US Embassy in Moscow, advised him on November 6 to come back
> during normal business hours to sign the necessary forms to renounce his
> citizenship (CE 919).
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0066a.htm
>
> Instead, Lee ignored this letter in his interview and told her about his
> original visit, stating, as CE 910 confirms, that the US Embassy "would
> not allow me to act without confirmation of my Soviet citizenship. I
> relinguished my passport and they said they would not act unless my Soviet
> citizenship was confirmed."
>
> Almost a week had gone by since being invited back to sign the forms. Yet
> Lee didn't go back and failed to acknowledge the invitation. Here's the
> explanation he gave to Priscilla Johnson for not going back:
>
> He was "bitter towards Richard Snyder, who, he charges, stalled him when
> he asked to take the oath on Oct 31, only time Lee's been at the Embassy.
> As a result, Lee won't go back there."
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0154b.htm
>
> Lee has retained his US citizenship, believes he has an "Active" status with
> the USMC, and abides by the regulations for such "Active" status.
>
> Lee is planning to come home. Even Priscilla Johnson suspected this,
> advising Richard Snyder that Lee had "left the door open" to return (page
> 289, Vol XX).
>
> She could only say this if she she knew Lee had not renounced his Ameican
> citizenship. Here, on Dec 5, 1963, she admits knowing just that:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
>
>

Lee never indended to re-nounce his citizenship or "defect" on his own.


> >
> > His cover is established and hidden.
>
> Even from himself. If Lee ever tried to testify otherwise, the USMC could
> state that Lee was lying, that he had never received a dependent's
> discharge and that he was Inactive - not Active - when he went to the
> USSR.
>
> Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.

Lee knows he is expendable.....it's part of the risk accepted, before enlistment.



> > >
> >
> > You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....
>
> Lee did not miss this.

He can't which is why he is fully aware of his "status".

>
> >however you did not miss
> > the "PD".
>
> Lee did.
>

NO.....PD is a key factor....it works several ways.

>
> >
> > * UNITED STATES CODE
> > o TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
> > + PART III - EMPLOYEES
> > + Subpart B - Employment and Retention
> > + CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND
> PLACEMENT
> > + SUBCHAPTER III - DETAILS
> >
> > § 3341. Details; within Executive or military departments
> >
> > * (a) The head of an Executive department or military department may
> > detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department,
> > except employees who are required by law to be exclusively engaged on
> > some specific work.
> > * (b) Details under subsection (a) of this section may be made only by
> > written order of the head of the department, and may be for not more
> > than 120 days. These details may be renewed by written order of the
> > head of the department, in each particular case, for periods not
> > exceeding 120 days.
> >
>
> According to this, Lee's "detail" would expire in January, 1960. I expect
> this is why you believe Lee's mission was to end in December, 1960 but
> that something changed?
>

JFK WAS ELECTED, Lee operation could be "canceled" at this time. JFK
would take office in January, Nixon was out the door. All intelligence operations
now have "new directions" if JFK wanted to change things. The Presidentail
Detail, has a new President.


> IMO, nothing changed. Lee is under "orders" until January, 1960 - or until
> he gets his "resident visa". Once inside the USSR he is beyond "orders".
> But, up until January 1960, he has his orders to obey. Lee must do as he's
> told through January. If he doesn't obey orders and abscounds with $ 2500
> of USG money, bad things will be waiting for him back in the US.
> "Presidential detail" covers this period.

Your overlooking several key facts......Look at the period and correspondence
by Lee during Jan/Feb......with the consideration that the operationial plug would
be pulled.

>
> Once inside the USSR, his "presidential detail" commitment expires. But we
> no longer need it then. The USMC just needs to make him obey orders until
> he's inside - or until January, 1960. This corresponds to when Lee
> received his temporary Russian visa.
>
> Thus, there is no required connection between the length of Oswald's
> "detail" and the length of his mission.
>

The detail was allowed to continue, but with some changes. The agreement between
Ike and Niki, was different then the one between JFK and Niki. I made a post several
years ago about the 185 to 8 motive. This would also allow Lee to have motive to
remove JFK......this was about 2 years ago.

> >
> > > >
> > > > The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald,
> clearly
> > > > support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.
> > >
> > > "Active Reserve" - which his actions and planning show he believed himself
> > > to be.
> > >
> >
> > He was "Active".
>
> I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide that
> he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
> knowledge.
>

WITH OSWALD'S KNOWLEDGE


> > Lee is not being used against his will. He has to be fully aware of his
> status and
> > the fact that for the most part he would be on his own.
> >
>
> Yes. He's a volunteer and he knows that, for the most part, he would be on
> his own. I add though that he was not told that his discharge status had
> been changed from "dependency" to "hardship". The effect of Lee believing
> he has a "dependency discharge" is that he knows he can be recalled to
> Active Duty. The only reason for him to be "recalled" would be to punish
> him for not performing as required. Therefore, Lee is, in effect, under
> orders the whole time he is in the USSR.
>

Basically yes, Lee is under orders from day one, with full knowledge of all
the risks, public distain, conflicts, being labeled as a "commie" etc etc. It
all adds to his "value"........later.....as part of "The September Conspiracy"
dealing with Mexico/Cuba/Gus Hall/FPCC etc etc.

> >
> > > >
> > > > I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied them
> to
> > > > what actually took place.
> > >
> > > I'm sure it took time.
> > > Your work is appreciated by me. You know that.
> >
> > There is still more that is always needed......and some of the ground work
> was to
> > write a "fictionial" account. So I worked off all the unsupported CT's
> and developed
> > one that is supported, by the law and known actions. I could push this as
> a major
> > CT........but I enjoy the challenge of proving myself wrong. I just
> thought that somebody
> > out there would be able to counter my findings "under the law"......but
> nobody seems
> > to be up to the task.
>
> Your work agrees with mine even though we took separate ways of getting
> there.
>
>

We still have some differences.......but minor overall.

jko

> ::Clark::




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 15 Oct 2004 17:32:00 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mrq27pgetr2f9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in
> > >

> >
>
> > snip ost covered in other areas

> It comes close to avoiding the Letter of instruction sent to Mrs. Oswald
> though for more info. It shows Lee had knowledge of what would be asked
> for and sought to provide it before it was asked for.
>
>
> > Like I
> > said.......NOBODY would bother with a detailed background check for any
> reason.
> >
>
> I think that might have drawn Poindexter's ire...

These people although part of the normal "process" are not "directing things" just
going along, without evidence in support. They can't be considered as any direct
connection to any "detail" or "new assignement"......they are just doing things without
support. Even if they failed to go along......it's minor.....it's the fact that they did
go along without supporting evidence is what is the important consideration. The
ultimate goal would happen regardless. It's because of efforts outside of these
individuals concerns, to "screw" or seperated individual, it was just rubber stamped
along.

jko




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 15 Oct 2004 17:32:10 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mu1bna19lj279@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > snip


> > I think you are putting too much into the status.......in the wrong
> ways....but
> > I know you are just trying to figure it out. There are four ways that all
> of this
> > has to be considered.
> >
> > 1. Seperated on his own
> > 2. Seperated as "Inactive" due to hardship
> > 3. Seperated as a member of the Ready Reserve
> > 4. Still on Active Duty
> >
> > Still on AD covers all known actions.
> >
>
> Certainly by Lee.


Yes, Lee knows his status, but few others would..........if everything was just
rubberstamped, passed along the routine trail......but things are just not right
if one looks deep enough.

>
>



> > >
> > > I think that might have drawn Poindexter's ire...
> > >
> >
> > Wrong Poindexter in my opinion. J. W. Poindexter was only the first
> endorsement,
> > not the last.
> >
>
> I show him as a Lt. Colonel in 1951.
> Not a big enough fish at that time.
> What was his rank in 1959?
>

No idea, no rank or position appear on his endoresement or any other document
I have....but then I know I don't have them all.



> >
> > This is money that the Red Cresent gave Lee while he was in Minsk, not the
> > money for the trip. Offical confirmation of dependency or hardship has to
> come
> > from the Red Cross......there is no Red Cross confirmation in the
> papertrail.
> >
>
> WOW!
> How did you even THINK to make that connection?

It's common knowledge in the military system. The Red Cross was used as cover
since, we fought the Soviets in WWI when the RC was just forming it's deep connection
with the military. We attactually did fight one battle by mistake with Soviet forces on
Soviet soil..........these RC guys over there might have caused that battle.......I wrote
about this many years ago. The same consideration in WWII, JFK's sister worked for
the Red Cross in England, with the guy who would later replace Papa Joe, in the Court
of St. James, he also later headed the forrunning OSS operations that became the
base of the CIA.

> > > >
> >
> > It's hard to say it was to save time......but the two papertrails are
> there and they
> > conflict.
> >
>
> You're right. Maybe it wasn't to save time.
> Maybe it was to create dual paper trails.
> One for Oswald.
> And one for the USMC.
>

The truth about the two seperate paper trails and the confirmation of both being
part of this "project" were/are presented as being "destroyed". That is not what
I believe.


> >
> > Lt. Ayers......in my opinion is the man in the middle, insuring all the
> paperwork
> > is done and hidden if needed. Somebody has to direct the paper. Even he
> does
> > not have to know why.
> >
>
> Which brings me back to J.W. Poindexter's rank. A Lt. Colonel in 1951
> could be out of the colonel business by 1959.

A buck private could have handled this........rank is not the issue or concern.
It's actually better to have lower ranking individuals handling this. Easier for PD.


> > > > It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the
> > > "endoresements" of
> > > > discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment is.
> > > However, if Lee
> > > > is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there?
> > >
> > > Through 9/11/59.
> > >
> >
> > It was not approved until 30 September.....Lee was "out".
>
> Which brings you to the Red Cross?

Yes, there is one letter by Dr. Howard, dated Sept 3rd, that is DIRECTED TO
THE RED CROSS. I also believe Lee was pissed at his mother for doing things
without going through the RC.......I believe there are letters on this....but I don't
have them handy right now.....Lee's pay records would have been closed out on
11 Sept. 1959. That would mean that the approval would have been closed out
at the same time as not being needed.

>
> If so, brilliant thinking.
>

One has to first understand the basics.....which have never been presented properly.
I first questioned the absences of the confirmation required by the Red Cross within
the offical records. It was at first a seperate consideration only in the fact that not
all the "required" documents were in the files presented......but nobody would even
look, without considerinig all the factors of known history, on going at the time. It
was later that I associated that amount of money that Lee was given in the USSR.
It was when I was working on the money coming from Texas, while Lee was employed
in New Orleans, that things came together in considering the Red Cresent funds.


> > > And more information is about to come Oswald's way regarding "US
> > > citizenship".
> >
> > in another thread.....
>
>
> Okay - but it pertains directly to September-December 1959.
>
> >

Yes, but it means moving on from the discharge.........



> > Lee was not qualified to be part of the primary considerations of the
> exchange
> > but was on a very low level.....as a "operator".
>
>
> Of the system being turned over?

Yes, the system.........or it's adaption.......I believe that they needed somebody
that would be able to work the system from both sides......which maybe the
reason Lee was later asked to stay and things had to be worked out for him
to stay and work where the Soviet versions would be made....in Minsk. It's
also my opinion that Lee was actually useless in this.....but that's another issue
on his training.



> > The person crossing the border had to be one that the KGB would approve
> of.
> >
>
> Agreed. But I don't think KGB approval of Oswald was in place in September
> - which may explain the "slow boat".

They are in my opinion the ones that insisted that the individual be a "nobody"
in the first place. So they would not have to spend a great deal of time or effort
in "watching him" which is exactly what happened. Low ranking KGB operatives
and very low priority concerning his activities. My account has to take everything
into consideration in support of the desires of both the USSR and the USA.

>
> However, Richard Snyder noted Lee's Soviet visa had expired 5 days earlier
> when Lee showed up at the US Embassy - And noted it was unusual for Lee
> not to have already been carted across the border.

Lee was in the country illegally, at that time by all the information available to Synder.


>


> > > > Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct 31.
> > >
> > > I'll drag mine out and post them.
> > > They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read them.
> >
> > The Oct 31 letter is the first........Snyder gives the message with "the
> wrong address",
> > which confirms Lee is who he is and all is well. The address in the
> letter is not
> > Lee's last known address....it is the address he lived at when he join the
> USMCR.
>
> Here is Lee getting a "message out" to the USG from his hotel in Moscow on
> November 12-13, 1959.

That's after the offical October 31 cable sent immediately after Lee left Synder.


Your letters to be addressed later............


>
> OK. But I promised I'd share that Oswald sent messages - one of which went
> to Snyder - that are not in the official record. So I included one above.
>

they are important but too much outside of the "early out" that still has to be
ended.


> How do we rule that out that he 1) Didn't go see the base legal attorney
> for his help 2) Didn't research the codes himself?

We can't rule these considerations out.......they follow the

1. Seperation on his own


> Not that I'm arguing. My proof that Lee couldn't act alone is while he's
> in the USSR - not in his method of obtaining his discharge.

You need the discharge, the entry, the stay and the return as well to put everything
in proper perspective.

>
> Again, let's assume Morely is reading this (I sent him an e mail on this
> but he's slow on opening and reading them.).
>

He has CIA material coming in Dec......so chances are he has a full plate.

jko
>
> ::Clark::




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 15 Oct 2004 22:38:24 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mv3tv6cj4dt42@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:416e725e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mr94gah9g1h25@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
> > >
> > I have some new stuff on Lamont and the Postmaster that I'm sure you and
> > he will find interesting. I have the Lamont material in
> hardback......didn't know
> > it, the Vol 381, Oct, Term 1964 reports of the Supreme Court was holding
> up
> > the books on a bookshelf, but I now have internet access to it.
> >
>
> Corlis Lamont?
> Who is the "Postmaster"?
>

the same......Postmaster General it's about sending communist material
through the mail.

>

> > >
> > > The early discharge represents a "change of plans" generated "top down".
> > > I'll refer to this as the "Stage 2" plan.
> > >
> >
> > I follow you.....but I don't think we are on the same sheet of music.
> This is where
> > it's difficult presenting all the considerations at one time.
> >
>
> No. We're on different pages here. But that's not a problem. Lt. Ayers
> actions on September 12 bring us both to the exact same point regardless of
> the number of "stages" to get there.

ok


> > > > >
> > > >

> > > >
> > >
> > > By JFK?
> > > LOL!
> >
> > JFK plays a major role, in several areas.
>
> Particularly in his choice of an AG who also sits on SGA.
> Talk about a power position...

Very powerfull family........


>
> Agreed that Oswald is a participant to just a single exchange - and possibly
> just an "add on". But he's not a "last minute" add on. He has been preparing
> since at least February, 1959.
>

His actual selection for this detail, might have been towards the end, but
he was in preperation a long time.


> >
> >
> > No......release was a seperate plan.......for public disclosure. When
> both sides
> > have the basics worked out the "public disclosure" is not a factor.
>
> Agreed. Brain fart on my part.
>

no problem.....happens here all the time.


> > But there are
> > some other considerations here dealing with "providing the Soviet" with
> info by
> > a "Marxist Marine" defector.
> >
>
> We have Lee openly offering the USSR his radar knowledge - And the USMC
> knowing he's going to make the offer via actions of Lt. Ayers. So
> "information sharing" is going to occur without the knowledge of the rest of
> the American "establishment".

Or the population of the USSR.......both sides do not want alot of public
attention on this in case it "fails".

> It will be appear to the US establishment the info was delivered by a
> "defector" instead of by the Special Group.
> And the Russians know the info is coming.

The EOP runs the SGA......so it's all together.

> > No, Lee is just a courier, no major role otherwise.
> >
>
> The moment Lee walks into the USEMB Moscow on Oct 31, 1959 he is no longer a
> "courier".

He was only a "courier" crossing the boarder......he brings nothing back
but his "dirary".

>
> Assume Lee arrives in Moscow as a courier only and makes his delivery. Then,
> suddenly, a change of plan occurs.

Something had to happen.......Lee is not acting as a "defector" on his
own, he's acting as if he is not sure of what will be the next "stage".
He came as a courier and now has to become a "defector".

The support for this is that Lee has
> walked into the USEMB with an expired Soviet visa.

Correct. All the details may not have been worked out prior to this time.
(within the 10 day period)

If Lee entered Moscow to
> "defect" - why hasn't he entered the USEMB before his visa expired? And why
> have the Russians not already carted him off?
>

If Lee had done all of this during the first few days......it would be
clear that he was acting on his own. The Soviets had no problem kicking
out Petrulli even with all the "press coverage".

> Allow me to conclude you're suggesting somethng like that the "delivery"
> Oswald made was not of a material item, but of knowledge - such as
> operational knowledge.

Not totally.......it can only be assumed that Lee "studied" the TM's on
the various items of equipment.....or that he had exposure to the system
while on duty in Calif or Atsugi.....I believe he might have been exposed
to Project TP in the development stages......that required radar
operators......but I believe his knowledge is very limited.

The Russians expect to debrief him of that knowledge
> and then send him back. But they soon find the debriefing is much more
> complex than they expected.

They might have some changes......that would require them to know if the
US operator might have problems......Lee could fll in on the spot.

It runs past Lee's visa expiration date which
> the Russians must now ignore and continue to allow him to stay as the
> debriefing continues. Finally, the Russians realize the only way to get the
> info in a correct and understandable manner, is to allow Lee to stay (Which
> raises the KGB suspicion that Lee is a spy). Lee is therefore granted a one
> year visa.

Arrangement also have to be approved stateside......

>
> Do I believe this? No.
>

ok.......I've seen nothing so far that really counters the full extent of
my considerations.....but let's see what you got.

> Lee does not have to walk into the USEMB at all in the above scenario. The
> Russians can grant Lee a one year visa without Lee ever seeing Snyder. Lee's
> passport is good for two years. So Lee does not need to renounce his US
> citizenship. Nor is there any reason for him to announce that he intends to
> give the Soviets his radar knowledge. Neither of these actions are of any
> value if the Russians have already agreed to take Lee. There are only useful
> if they have not.

Doing otherwise removes all the PD of both sides.

>
> Snyder's planning for Lee's return began three days before Lee even entered
> the USEMB to renounce his citizenship. On Oct 28, 1959 Snyder informed Mr.
> Boster of his intention, which he "had so far taken" of not actively seeking
> information from the Soviets on Americans who had accepted Soviet
> citizenship - with the intention of deliberately not revoking that
> American's citizenship "in order to leave such avenues to repatriation as
> possible open to future contingency."

Advance knowledge.......or based on the last month's activities concerning
the US screw up of handling the Petrulli affair?

>
> IOW, if word reached Snyder that Lee had taken Soviet citizenship, Snyder
> would not seek confirmation of that fact from the Soviet authorities but
> would, instead, continue to treat Lee as an American citizen (in direct
> contradiction to regulations) in order to facilitate Lee's "future
> repatriation" back to the US.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0062b.htm

Your overlooking the bad press the US got concerning Petrulli. Synder had
sent Petrulli's passport back the day it was given to him by Petrulli.
The USDS would not issue a new one, screwing Petrulli. Synder never sent
Lee's passport back, even though it was NO LONGER VALID........you are
forgetting Lee crossed out his address on his passport.....making it
"void"......and against the law to deface btw.

I believe even the "offical version" mentions that letter is based on
Petrulli not Lee.

>
> In theory, if not fact, Lee did apply (and had already done so by the date
> of this letter) for Soviet citizenship. Had Lee been granted his request by
> the Soviets, Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship, as required by
> law, but instead have "passively" waited for Lee to contact him regarding
> his citizenship, which Lee did do, and then processed his return to the US
> in spite of Lee having Soviet citizenship.

Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship regardless.........he
can't. There is a very complex legal process to go through.

>
> What we find then is that Lee is coming home even if the Soviets granted him
> citizenship - And the plan to do this has been outlined three days before
> Lee entered the US Embassy to renounce his American citizenship.

Lee had no intent of not coming back to the U.S........you've overlooked
aspects "outside of the box" that you place yourself in.

>
> As you noted with Lt. Ayers being a party to Oswald's discharge status,
> Snyder is a party to bringing Oswald back from the USSR. His plan to bring
> Oswald back is in place before Oswald has even walked through the door.

Petrulli established the foundation..........so Lee can be
"ignored"......having Lee stay beyond the 10 days.....required Lee to
become the "defector" if he only went over as a courier....he would have
moved on without any of the "defector" issue ever coming into play.

>
> For lurkers, James and I can present loads of evidence showing the USG
> brought Lee back from the USSR and I will demonstrate that Snyder is
> involved with every step.
>

YOU have still not countered the basic outline presented.......don't worry
about him coming back yet.........

> For the moment, James and I have established that Lee's actions in avoiding
> "political meetings" and applying to Patrice Lumumba University while in the
> USSR are all related to his having an "Active" USMC status and that he is
> PLANNING TO COME HOME from day one - And to avoid legal entanglements when
> he does. To that, I have made the additional arguments that:
>
> 1) The USMC knew Lee would show up in the USEMB threatening to "share
> knowledge" with the Soviets and, therefore, altered his discharge status on
> September 12 in order to be able to claim Lee was not "Active" - and kept
> this alteration a secret from Oswald.

nope.....where is the need to keep things secret from
Oswald.......??????????

>
> 2) That Snyder knew that Lee would show up in Moscow, requesting Soviet
> citizenship, and that Snyder took pre-emptive action - in the event said
> citizenship request was granted - not to revoke Lee's American citizenship,
> even if the Soviets told him they had granted Lee Soviet citizenship and
> even though regulations required that Snyder revoke Lee's American
> citizenship if Lee obtained Soviet citizenship. Snyder's admitted goal for
> doing this was to repatriate Oswald (or someone like him) back to the US.
> Snyder developed this plan THREE DAYS before Oswald arrived at the USEMB.

nope.......the letter you are using is in relationship to Petrulli. We
have 23 defectors to worry about in all this.....NOT JUST LEE.

>
> 3) That Lee Harvey Oswald sent a message to Snyder from his hotel, using
> Priscilla Johnson as the courier, informing him that he had been granted a
> Soviet visa to stay in the USSR.
>

In my opinion Lee informs Snyder in person that Sat afternoon when embassy
is closed and nobody is around.

> One cannot expect James and I to agree on everything. The odds of that
> happening are about the same as two composers going into separate rooms and
> writing the same symphony. But we both know our notes and our instruments.
> We know when something is in tune and when it is not.

I haven't seen your primary counter yet.....

>
> The story we have been given of Lee's "defection" to the USSR is completely
> out of tune with reality.

It makes no sense in the relationship to over 125 bona fide defectors.

>
> For JKO, IMO, Lee knows he's headed for the USEMB in Moscow when he bought
> his ship ticket.

Not really sure he would have to go there if no changes were made after he
arrived.


> > > >
> > > > The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of
> Naval
> > > Research.
> > > > It was made public August 7, 1959.
>
> His "Teepee" (TP) project was a radar eye that could spot a rocket blast
> 5000 miles away almost as soon as the missile leaves the ground. It was
> tested in 1958.
> Was Lee Harvey Oswald shown how to operate this radar? Or were the Russians
> led to believe he knew how to operate it?

I believe that U-2's were part of the required testing due to the alt they
could reach. Atsugi is a Naval Air base and it was a Navy R&D project.
Col Whalen, and others recruiting for NSA for the new U-2 base in
Japan.......if the project fit with Ike's monitoring system.....there was
little to operate. Whalen btw turned out to be a Soviet spy.



> > because he was no "Super Spy" it was agreeable. If he was anyone but a
> > "young kid" he would never have been considered. I think the US felt that
> the
> > Soviets had to make the request in order to get Lee "inside deeper". If
> this
> > failed he would "go to school" and wait for the next assignment.
> >
>
> I see it differently but James and I have agreed to disagree. Yet we both
> agree that Lee had "help" in his discharge from the USMC and we both agree
> that help included Lt. Ayers. We also agree that Lee was "Active" while in
> the USSR. I also include Richard Snyder in assisting Oswald. JKO does not.

Is Snyder your counter? I consider him......but not directly connected to
anything Lee is doing.......outside being the "public contact". There has
to be "offical" and acceptable contact......Snyder fits that role just
doing as directed......even if from Lee.


> > Yep, I have a scar on my wrist almost equal to the one present connected
> to
> > the sucide.......(stab wound VN)......not related to any sucide but I can
> say anything
> > I want about it and how are you going to dispute it. The scar is there.
> Too many
> > conflicts surrounding this "sucide attempt" to accept.
> >
>
> JKO and I agree that Lee's "suicide" attempt was not genuine although I
> believe Lee actually did cut his wrist for purposes of "show".

I don't think Lee's scar was the normal or average sucide attempt scar.
But I never saw it.....have you?


> > > Ahh! Brainwashing!
> > > So Lee could not attend the worker meetings or he would violate US law?
> >
> > There were plans for Lee to return at some point.....attendance and
> actually
> > being part of the collective would cause "problems". Better to avoid it
> altogether,
> > which he did from day one.
> >
>
> JKO and I both agree that there were plans for Lee to return to the US "at
> some point". One can easily determine that "at some point" would have been
> before Lee's passport expired.
>

Lee's passport was made invalid by Lee before he gave it to Synder.


> >
> > >
> > > > There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
> > > > have been offically presented.
> > >
> > > That's why I wanted to bring up his ASC app.
> >
> > To me ASC was a "fall back" assignment, since Lee would be "in country"
> anyway.
> > HOWEVER, this fall back assignment could have been exactly what Lee was
> first
> > selected for, the assignment that allowed for his consideration for this
> "defection".
> > It puts Lee into the system, without being involved in any other aspect of
> any
> > exchange......but puts him at the top of a very short list.
> >
>
> What JKO is referring to is that being enrolled at Albert Schweitzer College
> allowed Lee, even if he never actually attended class, to be overseas for
> "educational purposes". Lee could be almost anywhere in the world in 1960,
> no questions asked. As I recall, ASC had been used by active reserve
> officers as means to travel abroad on military assignments.
>

I'm not really into all the possible uses of ASC.........I'm letting Greg
have those headaches.


> > >
> > > It would have also screwed up the "Oswald was a loner" presentation.
> > > No one would have believed that one anymore.
> >
> > If one looks at all the conflicts......Lee is anything but the loner
> presented, but
> > if you don't look.......the cover fits quite well.
> >
>
> This site is donated to that cover.
>

You would think so sometimes.



> > >
> > > Yes. We are left showing the possibilities and then showing how Lee's
> > > actions and the USG's actions fit those possibilities a mere 100% of the
> > > time.
> > >
> > >
> > Not a easy task........which is why I have no problem with being proven
> wrong, with
> > "equal" considerations.......not just what has been "presented".
>
> If one of is prove wrong, either by the other or by a lurker, we're simply
> narrowing down the possibilities all the more.
>

All paths to Dallas that are wrong have to be eliminated.

jko


From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 11:41:29 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:41706f5b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mv3tv6cj4dt42@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:416e725e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >
> > > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mr94gah9g1h25@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > > Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
> > > >
.
> > >
> >
> > We have Lee openly offering the USSR his radar knowledge - And the USMC
> > knowing he's going to make the offer via actions of Lt. Ayers. So
> > "information sharing" is going to occur without the knowledge of the
rest of
> > the American "establishment".
>
> Or the population of the USSR.......both sides do not want alot of public
> attention on this in case it "fails".

Even if it doesn't fail, it can be critisized as aiding the enemy by both
sides. It's a debate neither side needs.


>
> > It will be appear to the US establishment the info was delivered by a
> > "defector" instead of by the Special Group.
> > And the Russians know the info is coming.
>
> The EOP runs the SGA......so it's all together.
>
> > > No, Lee is just a courier, no major role otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > The moment Lee walks into the USEMB Moscow on Oct 31, 1959 he is no longer a
> > "courier".
>
> He was only a "courier" crossing the boarder......he brings nothing back
> but his "diary".
>

The "diary" serves only to protect him against prosecution.
What he does bring back of interest is "The Kollective".


> >
> > Assume Lee arrives in Moscow as a courier only and makes his delivery.
Then,
> > suddenly, a change of plan occurs.
>
> Something had to happen.......Lee is not acting as a "defector" on his
> own, he's acting as if he is not sure of what will be the next "stage".
> He came as a courier and now has to become a "defector".
>
> The support for this is that Lee has
> > walked into the USEMB with an expired Soviet visa.
>
> Correct. All the details may not have been worked out prior to this time.
> (within the 10 day period)

Yes. The "picture" has a problem here. We both see Lee with an expired
visa in Moscow. That's unusual. However, I can't find a reason to dwell on
it.


>
> If Lee entered Moscow to
> > "defect" - why hasn't he entered the USEMB before his visa expired? And
why
> > have the Russians not already carted him off?
> >
>
> If Lee had done all of this during the first few days......it would be
> clear that he was acting on his own. The Soviets had no problem kicking
> out Petrulli even with all the "press coverage".

For lurkers, Petrulli was a mentally ill American citizen who went to
Moscow, went to the USEMB there, renounced his American citizeship, and
then applied for Soviet citizenship. The Soviets denied his request and,
noting Petrulli's Russian tourist visa had expired, requested the
Americans to "get rid of him". The US responded that they could not -
since Petrulli had renounced his citizenship. Finally, the only way to get
Petrulli out was to declare him insane and that he lacked the capability
to understand the effects of renouncing his US citizenship and, therefore,
was still an American citizen.

Lee Harvey Oswald should have been handled in the same way - with the
Soviets notifying the USEMB that Lee's tourist visa had expired and
requesting he be removed. Yet the Soviets never made any such request with
Oswald even though his case his virtually identical to Petrulli's. The
only difference between them is that Petrulli went to the USEMB first and
the Soviets second, while Oswald went to the Soviets first and the USEMB
second. By not requesting he be removed, Lee was receiving "special
treatment" by the Soviets.



>
> > Allow me to conclude you're suggesting somethng like that the "delivery"
> > Oswald made was not of a material item, but of knowledge - such as
> > operational knowledge.
>
> Not totally.......it can only be assumed that Lee "studied" the TM's on
> the various items of equipment.....or that he had exposure to the system
> while on duty in Calif or Atsugi.....I believe he might have been exposed
> to Project TP in the development stages......that required radar
> operators......but I believe his knowledge is very limited.

But TP operational knowledge would have been a nice "carrot" to go with TP
technical knowledge. The Russians would think twice about kicking him out
if they believed he had "operational knowledge". They might even send him
to where the TP radars were being built in order to demonstrate training
and operation of the completed system.


>
> The Russians expect to debrief him of that knowledge
> > and then send him back. But they soon find the debriefing is much more
> > complex than they expected.
>
> They might have some changes......that would require them to know if the
> US operator might have problems......Lee could fll in on the spot.

And the price of finding out whether he's useful or not is small.

I don't have any problem with the above logic. Where I see problems is the
assumption that Kruschev had informed "all" about the incoming TP
technology. Everyone has a political opponent. Krushev could no more tell
everyone in the USSR about the deal than the US could tell everyone in
America about it.

Lee had to be gotten past Kruschev's critics that didn't know about "TP"
(Assuming that was the shared knowledge). Kruschev had to make a case to
his political enemies for why LHO should be let in - without telling them
about TP. Further, the case had to explain why Oswald was let in but
Petrulli wasn't since Oswald's admission now represented a "change in
policy" by the Supreme Soviet.

I believe "she" made the case for Kruschev before the Supreme Soviet that
Lee represented a propaganda opportunity. Here was someone so sincere in
his anti-American beliefs that he preferred "suicide" to returning to the
US. The idea was then planted by Leo Setyaev of letting Lee speak on Radio
Moscow about the horrors of life in the USA and how he preferred "death"
to returning.

The critics conceded but the KGB still was ordered to place Oswald under
surveillance as a possible spy.

>
> > It runs past Lee's visa expiration date which
> > the Russians must now ignore and continue to allow him to stay as the
> > debriefing continues. Finally, the Russians realize the only way to get
the
> > info in a correct and understandable manner, is to allow Lee to stay
(Which
> > raises the KGB suspicion that Lee is a spy). Lee is therefore granted a
one
> > year visa.
>
> Arrangement also have to be approved stateside......

I have described the actions of Richard Snyder on Oct 28, 1959 as evidence
said arrangements had been arranged and approved from "stateside".


>
> >
> > Do I believe this? No.
> >
>
> ok.......I've seen nothing so far that really counters the full extent of
> my considerations.....but let's see what you got.
>
> > Lee does not have to walk into the USEMB at all in the above scenario.
The
> > Russians can grant Lee a one year visa without Lee ever seeing Snyder.
Lee's
> > passport is good for two years. So Lee does not need to renounce his US
> > citizenship. Nor is there any reason for him to announce that he intends
to
> > give the Soviets his radar knowledge. Neither of these actions are of
any
> > value if the Russians have already agreed to take Lee. There are only
useful
> > if they have not.
>
> Doing otherwise removes all the PD of both sides.

Sorry.
PD? Political diplomacy?

If so, I agree that the Soviets had to erngage in "political diplomacy"
with their own Supreme Soviet to get Lee approved. However, it was not
fully succcessful. Lee's request for Soviet citizenship was turned down by
the opposition (An actual benefit to the US but an approval that Richard
Snyder was prepared to deal with if it happened.). He was granted a one
year "stateless person's" visa which, in fact, was the best of all worlds
for both Kruschev and the SGA, although Lee's opponents did not know that.

>
> >
> > Snyder's planning for Lee's return began three days before Lee even
entered
> > the USEMB to renounce his citizenship. On Oct 28, 1959 Snyder informed
Mr.
> > Boster of his intention, which he "had so far taken" of not actively
seeking
> > information from the Soviets on Americans who had accepted Soviet
> > citizenship - with the intention of deliberately not revoking that
> > American's citizenship "in order to leave such avenues to repatriation
as
> > possible open to future contingency."
>
> Advance knowledge.......or based on the last month's activities concerning
> the US screw up of handling the Petrulli affair?
>

The Petrulli affair cannot be applied to Snyder's memo. Let's use
Petrulli's case versus Snyder's Oct 28 memo. Snyder's memo covers Webster
- not Petrulli - as he specifically addresses Americans being granted
Sovet citizenship (which Petrulli was not) and the actions he should take
in terms of revoking (Webster's) citizenship. It does not aply to
Petrulli.

Webster is specifically named in the memo but the problem is that it
doesn't apply to Webster either. Webster was granted Soviet citizenship on
September 9, 1959. Webster told Richard Snyder on October 17, 1959, that
he had applied for Soviet citizenship and filled out a form entitled
"Affidavit for Expatriated Person", which, I presume, met the requirements
for renouncing his American citizenship.

Yet Snyder's memo was written as if Webster had "realized his error" and
applied to return to the US. As of Oct 28, 1959, he had not.

So either Snyder is guessing that Webster is about to request to return to
the US or he's guessing that Lee Harvey Oswald is about to walk into his
office three days later.

Snyder has absolutely no possibility of guessing Webster's actions because
he has no reason to believe that Webster will ever request to return to
the US at the time he wrote the memo.

It is clear from reading the memo that Snyder was referring to future
cases of renounciation and he is three days away from that very case.


> >
> > IOW, if word reached Snyder that Lee had taken Soviet citizenship,
Snyder
> > would not seek confirmation of that fact from the Soviet authorities but
> > would, instead, continue to treat Lee as an American citizen (in direct
> > contradiction to regulations) in order to facilitate Lee's "future
> > repatriation" back to the US.
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0062b.htm
>
> Your overlooking the bad press the US got concerning Petrulli. Synder had
> sent Petrulli's passport back the day it was given to him by Petrulli.

Snyder acted by the book with Petrulli. Snyder then decided not to act "by
the book" with Oswald. But you can't use Petrulli as the reason for that
because Petrulli wasn't granted Soviet citizenship and Snyder specifically
addresses his memo to Americans who are granted Soviet citizenship.

> The USDS would not issue a new one, screwing Petrulli. Synder never sent
> Lee's passport back, even though it was NO LONGER VALID........you are
> forgetting Lee crossed out his address on his passport.....making it
> "void"......and against the law to deface btw.

Snyder never shared with State that Lee had crossed out his address on his
passport to render it void. He acted at all times as if the passport was
valid. If he did not, why then did he return it to Lee and then accept it
as valid knowing it wasn't?

The evidence shows that, at all points in time, beginning three days
before Lee even appeared in his office, Snyder was preparing for LHO (or
someone EXACTLY like him) to return to the US in direct contradiction to
regulations.


>
> I believe even the "offical version" mentions that letter is based on
> Petrulli not Lee.

You can find the "official version" in Volume IV page 269 of the Warren
Report:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0138b.htm

Snyder elected not to accept Lee's renounciation of his US citizenship
"until the action of the Soviet authorities on his request for Soviet
citizenship is known or the Department advises."

Unfortunately, this is in in direct contradiction to his memo of Oct 28
where he states the policy, that he "had so far taken" in direct
opposition to regulations, NOT TO ACT "when the action of the Soviet
authorities on his (insert Lee) request for Soviet citizenship is
known..."

Snyder told his superiors one thing on Oct 28, 1959 and the WC another.

The memo to Mr. Gene Boster is discussed on page 271. Snyder admits it
does "not refer to any particular case".

When asked if his memo was "motivated by the Petrulli case?" He replied,
"No. I don't think it was."

On page 272, Dulles pointed out that Snyder's logic in his memo could only
apply to incompetent persons such as Petrulli and to no one else, such as
Oswald. To which Snyder replied, "This is a question of law to which I
cannot answer."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0141b.htm

Yet, on Oct 28, 1959, Snyder did have an answer to the law. In direct
defiance of regulations he would not accept Oswald's renounciation of his
American citizenship, as he "had so far taken", even if the Soviet
authorities informed him they had granted Oswald Russian citizenship.

As long as Richard Snyder is sitting behind that desk in Moscow, Lee
Harvey Oswald is coming HOME.

>
> >
> > In theory, if not fact, Lee did apply (and had already done so by the
date
> > of this letter) for Soviet citizenship. Had Lee been granted his request
by
> > the Soviets, Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship, as
required by
> > law, but instead have "passively" waited for Lee to contact him
regarding
> > his citizenship, which Lee did do, and then processed his return to the
US
> > in spite of Lee having Soviet citizenship.
>
> Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship regardless.........he
> can't. There is a very complex legal process to go through.

He successfullu revoked Webster's.
He successfully revoked Petrulli's.
You can argue that Webster and Petrulli were right there in front of him to
do it - but then so was Lee.
Snyder handled Lee different from Webster and Petrulli and without
permission or instruction to do so.


>
> >
> > What we find then is that Lee is coming home even if the Soviets granted
him
> > citizenship - And the plan to do this has been outlined three days
before
> > Lee entered the US Embassy to renounce his American citizenship.
>
> Lee had no intent of not coming back to the U.S........you've overlooked
> aspects "outside of the box" that you place yourself in.
>

I will agree that the USG had every intent of Lee coming back to the US.


> >
> > As you noted with Lt. Ayers being a party to Oswald's discharge status,
> > Snyder is a party to bringing Oswald back from the USSR. His plan to
bring
> > Oswald back is in place before Oswald has even walked through the door.
>
> Petrulli established the foundation..........so Lee can be
> "ignored"......having Lee stay beyond the 10 days.....required Lee to
> become the "defector" if he only went over as a courier....he would have
> moved on without any of the "defector" issue ever coming into play.

Petrulli did NOT establish the foundation. Snyder established the
foundation - three days before Lee walked into his office. Lee was the
first American defector to fit the description of Snyder's memo, which he
advised Mr. Gene Boster was now HIS policy. No previous American had EVER
received the special treatment Snyder afforded Oswald. The rules were
changed three days before Oswald walked in the door.


Next, having "Lee stay beyond 10 days" did "require Lee to become the
'defector'..." Snyder testified that Petrulli had stayed in Moscow a
"number of weeks" before his application was rejected - so it was possible
for someone to stay past their visa expiration in Moscow if they were
requesting Soviet citizenship.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0139a.htm

For this reason I do not attach any significance to Lee's Soviet visa
being expired when he arrived at the USEMB. He had already applied for
Soviet citizenship and, if the Russians examined him as they did Petrulli,
it could be expired by a "number of weeks" and he'll still be in Moscow.

Thus, I agree entirely with your following statement:

"if he only went over as a courier....he would have moved on without any
of the "defector" issue ever coming into play."

Since, if he only went over as a courier the defector issue never would
have come into play, I conclude he is more than just a courier or -if he
is - the complexities of what is being transferred are very time
consuming.



>
> >
> > For lurkers, James and I can present loads of evidence showing the USG
> > brought Lee back from the USSR and I will demonstrate that Snyder is
> > involved with every step.
> >
>
> YOU have still not countered the basic outline presented.......don't worry
> about him coming back yet.........

I can't make your case for you.
You have to do that.

I believe I have just countered your "Petrulli" arguments.


>
> > For the moment, James and I have established that Lee's actions in
avoiding
> > "political meetings" and applying to Patrice Lumumba University while in
the
> > USSR are all related to his having an "Active" USMC status and that he
is
> > PLANNING TO COME HOME from day one - And to avoid legal entanglements
when
> > he does. To that, I have made the additional arguments that:
> >
> > 1) The USMC knew Lee would show up in the USEMB threatening to "share
> > knowledge" with the Soviets and, therefore, altered his discharge status
on
> > September 12 in order to be able to claim Lee was not "Active" - and
kept
> > this alteration a secret from Oswald.
>
> nope.....

Lee told Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency discharge" - the very
discharge status he left the USMC on 9/11/59.

Lt. Ayers changed it on 9/12/59. How would Lee know that? And, apparently,
he did not, by his answer to Priscilla Johnson. His request to attend
Patrice Lumumba University and your own observation that Lee avoided the
worker "political meetings" (brainwashing sessions) are all indications
Lee believed his discharge states was "Active".

> where is the need to keep things secret from
> Oswald.......??????????

If Lee knew his discharge status was "Inactive" (hardship) he could take
the money for the trip and go buy himself a new car with it. What would
prevent him from doing that?



> >
> > 2) That Snyder knew that Lee would show up in Moscow, requesting Soviet
> > citizenship, and that Snyder took pre-emptive action - in the event said
> > citizenship request was granted - not to revoke Lee's American
citizenship,
> > even if the Soviets told him they had granted Lee Soviet citizenship and
> > even though regulations required that Snyder revoke Lee's American
> > citizenship if Lee obtained Soviet citizenship. Snyder's admitted goal
for
> > doing this was to repatriate Oswald (or someone like him) back to the
US.
> > Snyder developed this plan THREE DAYS before Oswald arrived at the
USEMB.
>
> nope.......the letter you are using is in relationship to Petrulli.

Snyder denied it was in relationship with Petrulli.

> We
> have 23 defectors to worry about in all this.....NOT JUST LEE.

Which one of the defectors previous o Oswald would have been allowed, as
policy by the consular, to accept Soviet citizenship without having his
American citizenship revoked?

>
> >
> > 3) That Lee Harvey Oswald sent a message to Snyder from his hotel, using
> > Priscilla Johnson as the courier, informing him that he had been granted
a
> > Soviet visa to stay in the USSR.
> >
>
> In my opinion Lee informs Snyder in person that Sat afternoon when embassy
> is closed and nobody is around.
>

If so, it's missing from Snyder's testimony.
However, it's included in Priscilla Johnson's notes of the interview.

Either way, we both have Oswald relaying this info to Snyder who does what
with it?

> > One cannot expect James and I to agree on everything. The odds of that
> > happening are about the same as two composers going into separate rooms
and
> > writing the same symphony. But we both know our notes and our
instruments.
> > We know when something is in tune and when it is not.
>
> I haven't seen your primary counter yet.....
>

Let me know if you still haven't and, if so, exactly what I'm supposed to
counter?


> >
> > The story we have been given of Lee's "defection" to the USSR is
completely
> > out of tune with reality.
>
> It makes no sense in the relationship to over 125 bona fide defectors.
>
> >
> > For JKO, IMO, Lee knows he's headed for the USEMB in Moscow when he
bought
> > his ship ticket.
>
> Not really sure he would have to go there if no changes were made after he
> arrived.
>

The only audience to Lee's show in Moscow are the Soviets. Please explain
how Lee's appearance at the USEMB to renounce his citizenship has anything
to do with our side? What do WE need to see this for?


>
> > > > >
> > > > > The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of
> > Naval
> > > > Research.
> > > > > It was made public August 7, 1959.
> >
> > His "Teepee" (TP) project was a radar eye that could spot a rocket blast
> > 5000 miles away almost as soon as the missile leaves the ground. It was
> > tested in 1958.
> > Was Lee Harvey Oswald shown how to operate this radar? Or were the
Russians
> > led to believe he knew how to operate it?
>
> I believe that U-2's were part of the required testing due to the alt they
> could reach.

I was wondering how this could work - but doesn't this require sharing the
radar eye technolgy to also include sharing a U-2?

>Atsugi is a Naval Air base and it was a Navy R&D project.
> Col Whalen, and others recruiting for NSA for the new U-2 base in
> Japan.......if the project fit with Ike's monitoring system.....there was
> little to operate. Whalen btw turned out to be a Soviet spy.
>

It's probably cheaper to buy spies than to develop your own technology. I
wonder how many times the Soviets did this?

>
>
> > > because he was no "Super Spy" it was agreeable. If he was anyone but
a
> > > "young kid" he would never have been considered. I think the US felt
that
> > the
> > > Soviets had to make the request in order to get Lee "inside deeper".
If
> > this
> > > failed he would "go to school" and wait for the next assignment.
> > >
> >
> > I see it differently but James and I have agreed to disagree. Yet we
both
> > agree that Lee had "help" in his discharge from the USMC and we both
agree
> > that help included Lt. Ayers. We also agree that Lee was "Active" while
in
> > the USSR. I also include Richard Snyder in assisting Oswald. JKO does
not.
>
> Is Snyder your counter? I consider him......but not directly connected to
> anything Lee is doing.......outside being the "public contact". There has
> to be "offical" and acceptable contact......Snyder fits that role just
> doing as directed......even if from Lee.
>

You, yourself, have Snyder returning a "null and void" passport to Oswald
and then accepting it as "valid".

Richard Snyder is my Lt. Ayers.
But it goes higher than that.
Someone else in State is acting independently of the Secretary of State's
authority. I would suggest that RFK/JFK have bypassed their own Secretary.
Rusk's name appears nowhere in the paper trail.
But that's another post.


>
> > > Yep, I have a scar on my wrist almost equal to the one present
connected
> > to
> > > the sucide.......(stab wound VN)......not related to any sucide but I
can
> > say anything
> > > I want about it and how are you going to dispute it. The scar is
there.
> > Too many
> > > conflicts surrounding this "sucide attempt" to accept.
> > >
> >
> > JKO and I agree that Lee's "suicide" attempt was not genuine although I
> > believe Lee actually did cut his wrist for purposes of "show".
>
> I don't think Lee's scar was the normal or average sucide attempt scar.
> But I never saw it.....have you?
>

No. But it's description of the cut is in the opposite direction of what it
should be for a "serious" suicide attempt.
Indeed, he might just as well have cut his finger and called it a "suicide"
attempt.

>
> > > > Ahh! Brainwashing!
> > > > So Lee could not attend the worker meetings or he would violate US
law?
> > >
> > > There were plans for Lee to return at some point.....attendance and
> > actually
> > > being part of the collective would cause "problems". Better to avoid
it
> > altogether,
> > > which he did from day one.
> > >
> >
> > JKO and I both agree that there were plans for Lee to return to the US
"at
> > some point". One can easily determine that "at some point" would have
been
> > before Lee's passport expired.
> >
>
> Lee's passport was made invalid by Lee before he gave it to Synder.
>

Who recognized it as valid anyway -and without your suspicion?


>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
> > > > > have been offically presented.
> > > >
> > > > That's why I wanted to bring up his ASC app.
> > >
> > > To me ASC was a "fall back" assignment, since Lee would be "in
country"
> > anyway.
> > > HOWEVER, this fall back assignment could have been exactly what Lee
was
> > first
> > > selected for, the assignment that allowed for his consideration for
this
> > "defection".
> > > It puts Lee into the system, without being involved in any other
aspect of
> > any
> > > exchange......but puts him at the top of a very short list.
> > >
> >
> > What JKO is referring to is that being enrolled at Albert Schweitzer
College
> > allowed Lee, even if he never actually attended class, to be overseas
for
> > "educational purposes". Lee could be almost anywhere in the world in
1960,
> > no questions asked. As I recall, ASC had been used by active reserve
> > officers as means to travel abroad on military assignments.
> >
>
> I'm not really into all the possible uses of ASC.........I'm letting Greg
> have those headaches.
>

I was hoping he would post that argument as well. However, I can post it to
the extent of showing Lee's "acting alone" to reach the USSR is highly
questionable.

>
> > > >
> > > > It would have also screwed up the "Oswald was a loner" presentation.
> > > > No one would have believed that one anymore.
> > >
> > > If one looks at all the conflicts......Lee is anything but the loner
> > presented, but
> > > if you don't look.......the cover fits quite well.
> > >
> >
> > This site is donated to that cover.
> >
>
> You would think so sometimes.
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Yes. We are left showing the possibilities and then showing how
Lee's
> > > > actions and the USG's actions fit those possibilities a mere 100% of
the
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Not a easy task........which is why I have no problem with being
proven
> > wrong, with
> > > "equal" considerations.......not just what has been "presented".
> >
> > If one of us is proven wrong, either by the other or by a lurker, we're
simply
> > narrowing down the possibilities all the more.
> >
>
> All paths to Dallas that are wrong have to be eliminated.
>

First Officer Spock would approve.


::Clark::


From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 12:47:54 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:41700c65@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mu1bna19lj279@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > snip
>
>
> > > I think you are putting too much into the status.......in the wrong
> > ways....but
> > > I know you are just trying to figure it out. There are four ways that
all
> > of this
> > > has to be considered.
> > >
> > > 1. Seperated on his own
> > > 2. Seperated as "Inactive" due to hardship
> > > 3. Seperated as a member of the Ready Reserve
> > > 4. Still on Active Duty
> > >
> > > Still on AD covers all known actions.
> > >
> >
> > Certainly by Lee.
>
>
> Yes, Lee knows his status, but few others would..........if everything was
just
> rubberstamped, passed along the routine trail......but things are just not
right
> if one looks deep enough.
>

That is the purpose of this exchange - to show that while you and I may not
agree on why some "things are just not right" we still agree that they are
"not right".



> > > >
> > > > I think that might have drawn Poindexter's ire...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong Poindexter in my opinion. J. W. Poindexter was only the first
> > endorsement,
> > > not the last.
> > >
> >
> > I show him as a Lt. Colonel in 1951.
> > Not a big enough fish at that time.
> > What was his rank in 1959?
> >
>
> No idea, no rank or position appear on his endoresement or any other
document
> I have....but then I know I don't have them all.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > This is money that the Red Cresent gave Lee while he was in Minsk, not
the
> > > money for the trip. Offical confirmation of dependency or hardship
has to
> > come
> > > from the Red Cross......there is no Red Cross confirmation in the
> > papertrail.
> > >
> >
> > WOW!
> > How did you even THINK to make that connection?
>
> It's common knowledge in the military system. The Red Cross was used as
cover
> since, we fought the Soviets in WWI when the RC was just forming it's deep
connection
> with the military. We attactually did fight one battle by mistake with
Soviet forces on
> Soviet soil..........these RC guys over there might have caused that
battle.......I wrote
> about this many years ago. The same consideration in WWII, JFK's sister
worked for
> the Red Cross in England, with the guy who would later replace Papa Joe,
in the Court
> of St. James, he also later headed the forrunning OSS operations that
became the
> base of the CIA.
>

You work in a box that has no sides...


> > > > >
> > >
> > > It's hard to say it was to save time......but the two papertrails are
> > there and they
> > > conflict.
> > >
> >
> > You're right. Maybe it wasn't to save time.
> > Maybe it was to create dual paper trails.
> > One for Oswald.
> > And one for the USMC.
> >
>
> The truth about the two seperate paper trails and the confirmation of both
being
> part of this "project" were/are presented as being "destroyed". That is
not what
> I believe.
>

No. I would not believe that either.
Someone would have to show me where it happened again elsewhere.

>
> > >
> > > Lt. Ayers......in my opinion is the man in the middle, insuring all
the
> > paperwork
> > > is done and hidden if needed. Somebody has to direct the paper. Even
he
> > does
> > > not have to know why.
> > >
> >
> > Which brings me back to J.W. Poindexter's rank. A Lt. Colonel in 1951
> > could be out of the colonel business by 1959.
>
> A buck private could have handled this........rank is not the issue or
concern.
> It's actually better to have lower ranking individuals handling this.
Easier for PD.
>
>

I was thinking that if our Lt. Colonel was now a "Brigadier General" (A not
impossible 8 year step in rank) that his approval might cause those below to
follow suit with theirs.


> > > > > It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the
> > > > "endoresements" of
> > > > > discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment
is.
> > > > However, if Lee
> > > > > is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there?
> > > >
> > > > Through 9/11/59.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was not approved until 30 September.....Lee was "out".
> >
> > Which brings you to the Red Cross?
>
> Yes, there is one letter by Dr. Howard, dated Sept 3rd, that is DIRECTED
TO
> THE RED CROSS. I also believe Lee was pissed at his mother for doing
things
> without going through the RC.......I believe there are letters on
this....but I don't
> have them handy right now.....Lee's pay records would have been closed out
on
> 11 Sept. 1959. That would mean that the approval would have been closed
out
> at the same time as not being needed.
>

A facinating line of thought. I only remember his Red Cross payment in terms
of rubles. How close did it come to $ 90?


> >
> > If so, brilliant thinking.
> >
>
> One has to first understand the basics.....which have never been presented
properly.
> I first questioned the absences of the confirmation required by the Red
Cross within
> the offical records. It was at first a seperate consideration only in the
fact that not
> all the "required" documents were in the files presented......but nobody
would even
> look, without considerinig all the factors of known history, on going at
the time. It
> was later that I associated that amount of money that Lee was given in the
USSR.

I'm still really impressed - right or wrong - that you had this thought.
It makes perfect sense.

But I'm a "CTer" so that agreement is to be expected.


> It was when I was working on the money coming from Texas, while Lee was
employed
> in New Orleans, that things came together in considering the Red Cresent
funds.
>
>
> > > > And more information is about to come Oswald's way regarding "US
> > > > citizenship".
> > >
> > > in another thread.....
> >
> >
> > Okay - but it pertains directly to September-December 1959.
> >
> > >
>
> Yes, but it means moving on from the discharge.........
>

Would you care to get more specific on your July 25, 1963 date and the logic
behind it?
That has never entered into my research.


>
>
> > > Lee was not qualified to be part of the primary considerations of the
> > exchange
> > > but was on a very low level.....as a "operator".
> >
> >
> > Of the system being turned over?
>
> Yes, the system.........or it's adaption.......I believe that they needed
somebody
> that would be able to work the system from both sides......which maybe the
> reason Lee was later asked to stay and things had to be worked out for him
> to stay and work where the Soviet versions would be made....in Minsk.
It's
> also my opinion that Lee was actually useless in this.....but that's
another issue
> on his training.
>

Yes. He probably was useless in this but you'd have to be an idiot on the
Soviet side to accept the technology while refusing what appears to be the
operator.


>
>
> > > The person crossing the border had to be one that the KGB would
approve
> > of.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. But I don't think KGB approval of Oswald was in place in
September
> > - which may explain the "slow boat".
>
> They are in my opinion the ones that insisted that the individual be a
"nobody"
> in the first place. So they would not have to spend a great deal of time
or effort
> in "watching him" which is exactly what happened. Low ranking KGB
operatives
> and very low priority concerning his activities. My account has to take
everything
> into consideration in support of the desires of both the USSR and the USA.
>

You have given this area more thought than I have.
I had it narrowed down to "The Soviets were expecting him", identified Leo
Setyaev as a participant, and left it at that.

> >
> > However, Richard Snyder noted Lee's Soviet visa had expired 5 days
earlier
> > when Lee showed up at the US Embassy - And noted it was unusual for Lee
> > not to have already been carted across the border.
>
> Lee was in the country illegally, at that time by all the information
available to Synder.
>
>
> >
>
>
> > > > > Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct
31.
> > > >
> > > > I'll drag mine out and post them.
> > > > They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read them.
> > >
> > > The Oct 31 letter is the first........Snyder gives the message with
"the
> > wrong address",
> > > which confirms Lee is who he is and all is well. The address in the
> > letter is not
> > > Lee's last known address....it is the address he lived at when he join
the
> > USMCR.

I cruised right past this the first time.
But that would be one way of confirming Lee is "who he is" but, in another
post, you have Snyder an innocent pigeon. How do you reconcile this
observation with your lack of suspicion towards Snyder? Or is the address
given not for Snyder but for those who receive Snyder's message?


> >
> > Here is Lee getting a "message out" to the USG from his hotel in Moscow
on
> > November 12-13, 1959.
>
> That's after the offical October 31 cable sent immediately after Lee left
Synder.
>
>
> Your letters to be addressed later............
>
>
> >
> > OK. But I promised I'd share that Oswald sent messages - one of which
went
> > to Snyder - that are not in the official record. So I included one
above.
> >
>
> they are important but too much outside of the "early out" that still has
to be
> ended.


Lead and I shall follow.

>
>
> > How do we rule that out that he 1) Didn't go see the base legal attorney
> > for his help 2) Didn't research the codes himself?
>
> We can't rule these considerations out.......they follow the
>
> 1. Seperation on his own
>
>
> > Not that I'm arguing. My proof that Lee couldn't act alone is while he's
> > in the USSR - not in his method of obtaining his discharge.
>
> You need the discharge, the entry, the stay and the return as well to put
everything
> in proper perspective.
>

For lurkers, JKO is telling us that, as we see more of the picture, at some
point Lee can no longer be believed as acting "alone".
We are discussing his discharge and "defection" and not the JFK
assassination.


> >
> > Again, let's assume Morely is reading this (I sent him an e mail on this
> > but he's slow on opening and reading them.).
> >
>
> He has CIA material coming in Dec......so chances are he has a full plate.

He has replied to me already twice.
Evidently, you're on his e mail list too?

If so, that's good. He'll be able to pick his own path as we lay out the
minefield.


::Clark::


>
> jko
> >
> > ::Clark::
>
>
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 12:48:05 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> Guys,
>
> I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to give
> the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> bystanders get a foothold?
>
> Sincere request.
>
> paul seaton
>


Yours is a marvelous request. JKO and I tend to communicate on another level
from what is normally posted here. That doesn't mean we actually, truly,
"communicate". I operate from what James calls, "inside the box". That is to
say that I don't sway very far from the LNer's on Oswald. Thus, every time I
state an opinion on the evidence, JKO encourages me to think beyond that
opinion. He does that because he has gone "further back" in time than my
research. When I first started my research I didn't see any reason to go
back to when Lee was living in New York or what "Poppa" Joe Kennedy was
doing with Britain. After all, none of these activities could have anything
to do with 11/22/63. It seemed a waste of time to include them.
Instead, I started with Lee's "defection" to the USSR on the assumption that
this is the earliest possible applicable information of any merit (I wasa
wrong.).
It doesn't require a great deal of investigation to come to understand that
Lee was assisted in both reaching, and returning from, the USSR - And that
he received assistance from both sides. JKO and I will eventually get to
that.
I did initially not have an answer as to why Lee had received assistance
from BOTH SIDES. I simply had the evidence that it occurred. James, via his
own independent research, has tried to address WHY both sides would assist
Lee. Hence, he has raised Project TP. Actually, it appears we approached the
problem from the same angle, looking for a mutual US/Soviet information
exchange. We knew this is what we we're looking for (or, at least, I did)
from Nixon's "kitchen debate" with Kruschev. While the debate, itself, is of
no historical significance, the intentions of each party were publicly
expressed, most significantly by Kruschev who was very pointed, and "between
the lines" by Nixon (Krushev even made fun of Nixon's political answers as
being those of an "attorney"). It was clear that Nixon was interested in a
"sharing of ideas" and it was equally clear, by the examples Nixon used,
that he was proposing a sharing of technology. This took place in July,
1959. Thus, we both were on the hunt for a US technolgy transfer to the USSR
that coincided with Lee's "defection". I was unaware of Project TP but was
aware of a space technology transfer that took place in December, 1959 - the
very time Lee was in Moscowe requesting Soviet citizenship. Hence, I
"assumed" this was the "sharing of ideas" Nixon alluded to. However, JKO's
Project TP fits better as far as Lee is concerned because Project TP
involved radar, a subject Lee could contribute too. Whereas space technology
doesn't fit Oswald. My ASSUMPTION at the time was that Lee was a "tack on"
to the information exchange. That is to say that the US added the Soviets
admitting Oswald to the USSR as part of the "space technology" exchange.
IMO, the CIA was seeking "economic" information on the USSR which U-2's were
not providing, specifically the costs of goods and services and the
organization of production (The "Kollective"). Lee was to provide this
information. He was a "spy" but not in the ordinary sense. He was not
collecting secrets as much as he was collecting prices and production.
The evidence is quite clear that the Soviets understood Lee's mission and
did their best to subvert it by presenting a "false economy" to Oswald. They
put him up in his own river view apartment and they overpaid him for his
work. They KNEW he was going "back" and they sought to control the
information he took back with him by overstating their economy. When Lee
went back, it was their intention that he carry an exaggerated report of the
Soviet economy with him.
You can read Lee's report on the Soviet economy and production on John's
site as "The Kollective".

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm

The significance to JKO's and my exchange isn't to address what happened on
11/22/63 as much as it is to state that the presented history of Oswald is
incorrect. Had Oswald actually been what the Posnerites claim he was, he
would have been in prison on 11/22/63 breaking rocks with a lead ball
chained to his leg. You simply can't get around this.

Compare the history of defector Bruce Frederick Davis to Oswald's:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/defector.htm#DAVIS

Like Lee, Davis was US military who never renounced his US citizenship and,
like Lee, he was critical of US foreign policy. Like Lee, he also requested
the return of his American passport. And, like Lee, after requesting the
return of his passport, he met a Rusian girlfriend. Finally, like Lee, he
made an unauthorized visit to the USEMB to return to the US.

What was waiting for him when he got home?

A 10 year prison sentence at hard labor.

Yet whern Lee returned to the US, nothing happened. Where was his 10 year
sentence?

It fell through the cracks.

There is probably no person in the history of America with more government
filing "mistakes" than Oswald. They range from his military files to his
passport files. But, if one looks closely, the "mistakes" are not mistakes
at all. They serve a single purpose - to keep Lee from breaking rocks with a
lead ball chained to his leg like Bruce Frederick Davis.
This "favoritism" has lead to all kinds of wild CT theories - from where
he's an FBI informant to a CIA agent. But, in reality, he never worked for
either of those two agencies (Although they were very much aware of him.).
JKO and I have both figured out who Lee was working for in 1963 (Argueably,
from JKO's perspective, the same people he was working for in 1956.).

If you have questions, ASK.

This opportunity is not likely to come along again.


::Clark::




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 12:48:16 -0400


Paul: here is a outline (longer then what you might want) of the relationship
between Clark and myself on Oswald.

I will give you my side or view......Clark can provide his or his overall opinion.

In Nov 1963, I fully accepted that Oswald killed JFK and Ruby killing Lee on
TV, in reality had a greater impact then the actual death of JFK. My dad and
I watched everything. He had met JFK and stayed home that weekend and
Monday to watch all the events. That was about the longest "alone time" we
had ever had together, and it brought us very close. I had supported Nixon
over JFK in 1960.

When the WCR was released, we both read it and discussed it. I still thought
Lee killed JFK.....but my first and strongest opinion was Oswald, went to the
USSR "By direction" not on his own. In 1969 when I returned home from
overseas (VN and Japan) I started writing a script based on Manchester's
book "Death of a President". Not doing alot until, 1972 when I met Co. Finck
while in Germany......however I was now a father myself and all these filmscripts
were put on hold.

In 1990 along came Desert Storm, and I went with my Reserve unit. Stone's
movie was being discussed and we had alot of late night bull sessions concerning
the assassination etc etc. None of us had seen the movie yet. One of my Sgt's
told a very interesting story, one which I considered BS but interesting. He said
he would send me "evidence" when we returned. His father, was asked to hold
this evidence, in case anything happened to a Mr. John Otte of Delroy, Ohio.

I still considered Lee as the assassin, but strongly thought that not all of the
story was being told because of National Security considerations at the time.

After returning from DS, I watched "JFK" and thought too much was left out
and too much was added that made little or no sense. So I got out my early
work and started the research for my version of events which I call "Thpa2d"
"The Path to Dallas" and I joined the various internet discussion groups around
92-93.......although I don't remember exactly when, Clark and I made contact.

In a sense Clark and I have "done battle" against each of our opinions in a very
open way.....on the newsgroup. Agreeing to disagree on anything just to keep
the avenue of discussion open. We have very rarely exchanged email on the
topic being discussed or other aspects of the case.

Around 1994, I left teaching in the USAR to go to a BN, that was very close to
my home. I had been traveling over 250 miles a weekend to teach. My former
Section Chief (during DS) was the senior NCO of another unit but shared our
compound. He provided me with that "evidence". But that deals with RW groups,
and a early warning to JFK from Otte about Dallas.

I was now working on the section of "Thpa2d", dealing with Lee's military service,
"The Marxist Marine". I write all my scripts with the option of making the film
as a documentary or as a feature film (both fiction and non-fiction storylines).
Some of my scripts have 4-5 ways of being produced, or presented. I do this
based on "Alternate Considerations" of the known or presented history. In
the case of Owald's military service and his defection, I do not support the
"offical version" presented. Which brings us to this thread and the exchanges
here between Clark and myself.

I'm putting out on the table some of the primary findings of my research, some
of which I have made seperate posts on in the past. Clark is expressing either
his support, his questions on my work or his version of his take on things. In
some cases his version of what I think or the direction in which my work goes.
But Clark does not have all the material that I have to support my considerations.

I base everything for the "Marxist Marine" (enlistment and defection) on
the law and known actions against military service members associated with
communism in any way. I've studied Military History since the 50's and spent
over 33 years of my life connected to the U.S. Army.

That's the "background" on the exchanges and my basic opinion. I do not
feel that Lee's defection was on "his own". I do not believe his military service
was as presented. I can support my research from a point around July 1955
to July 25th, 1963, dealing with Lee's military service and defection. Up to
July 25th, 1963 I strongly believe Lee is working with the USG at first, in a minor
role associated with intelligence gathering against "subversives". After July
1963, the ball game changes.....but that leads into my script "The September
Conspiracy". The early part of his "enlistment" put him in position to be
selected for the 1959 "defection".

Lee's enlistment and seperation.....were "fraudulant" based on the presented
"offical" history. My work shows this, based on legal research, into various
laws concerning the military and national or internal security. It is not "fraudulant"
if part of a "operation" in the interest of the USG.

Key documents and records connected to Lee's military service, 5 intelligence
reports and two Courts-Martial records, were "destroyed", my FOIA requests
to the USN/USMC verify that fact.

Since these key records, are not available, one must fill in the blanks with "facts"
in association of why Lee was not fully prosecuted under the law, if he was acting
alone, during this period.

My basic view is that if Lee was acting alone.....as a true "Marxist Marine" then
he would have been arrested once he walked into the U.S. Embassy, and
the "defection" started. The grounds for doing so and the laws in support
were there......but Lee was allowed to walked out of a "closed" embassy.
(it was only open half a day on Sat).

Now to this actual thread........on the "early out". To obtain a 90 day early out,
the law and the military require "verification" of the grounds for seperation.
That "evidence" is evaluated and the discharge is granted or denied. In this
case Lee acts early to start the process.....too early in my opinion and in
two seperate directions, Dependency and Hardship.....which can be combined.
The "evidence" of either should have been in place (in the hands of the board)
prior to the "First Endorsement" of the discharge. This was not the case.
The board is proceeding without the required documentation. Some of which
comes in well after the long process of "Endorsement" is underway. Some
never reaches.....ie verification by the Red Cross, the hands of the endorsers.

There are alot of little details, that support the above, when combined show
that Lee could not have seperated "early" on his own, through normal channels.
He had to be "assisted" in seperating "early". This supports that Lee is not
as he is presented......ie the "Marxist Marine" and his trip to the USSR is
supported by the USG.

This support includes, funds, and legal seperation from the military. There
are other considerations, but to put it bluntly......I don't think Lee was actually
"in" the USMC.....but had been recruited in 1955 for the National Security
Training Corps, under the new Reserve Forces Act of 1955. The USMCR
was used, to "train Lee" and take advantage of various actions that are a
known part of his "service". Under the RFA of 55, all branches of the service
were used to "train" individuals that would be in the military but not part of
the actual military they were being trained by....the USMC was the last branch
to go along with this training program. This training satisfied, service obligation,
without losing control over the individual, if he is working in areas of National
or Internal Security.

I wanted this thread to focus only on the aspects of the seperation. Clark wants
to expand it into areas of "the defection"........but I feel that confuses some,
as you indicate by this request.

To address some of the considerations mentioned by Clark. There has to be
a "project" that fits into the ongoing "history" of the time. It has to be associated
with the Navy, requires information to be passed off to the Soviets and of prime
consideration, it has to fit Oswald and his known actions. It is the reason for the
"early out". There are about 15 such projects, relating to National Security
intelligence operations going on in 1959. In my opinion Project TP is the best
one to consider and I use that as the foundation of Lee's "defection".

The problem is that "ALL OF" the offical reports and investigations of Lee's
defection are not "included" in the WCR and Exhibits. The prime example of
this is the investigation to "prosecute" Lee for various violations of the law,
known to have occurred. This would be what I call the "AG's report" by direction
of RFK. There were a dozen other intelligence agencies looking into this
"defection".....those reports are also "incomplete"......the prime example is
the conflicts surrounding the CIA's handling of the case, which is why so many
believe Lee was working for the CIA from 1959 on. They are wrong in belief
that Lee was in the CIA.

All of my research can be supported, either by the law or known cases against
"subversives" "spies" and "defectors". There is alot of details that have to be
considered from approximately Feb-59 to Feb 1960, just concerning the
seperation of Oswald from the USMC......which have never surfaced in the
past. These actions......having NOTHING to do with the assassination, except
as "background" that puts him on the path to Dallas.

Now, for the kicker.......I can use the material, to show that Lee was part of
the outline above.....or I can show Lee acting on his own, using the same
material. But it requires a "higher" opinion of Lee than most will ever accept.

I have no problem with my research being "countered" with facts and legal
considerations, I do all my research equally to show "both sides".

I hope this helps.......and if you want me to show you where the material
supports Lee is acting on his own, I can point you in those directions.
I lean towards Lee working in association, because my opinion of Lee is
not as high (although higher then most) as required......I still believe Lee
needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.

I no longer care if "Thpa2d" is ever produced.....so I might as well share
these opinions with those interested.

jko

[.]




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 22:37:01 -0400


Not too many snip here.........

"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n1huds6t29n0e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41700c65@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mu1bna19lj279@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in
> > > >

> > > > I think you are putting too much into the status.......in the wrong
> > > ways....but
> > > > I know you are just trying to figure it out. There are four ways that
> all
> > > of this
> > > > has to be considered.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seperated on his own
> > > > 2. Seperated as "Inactive" due to hardship
> > > > 3. Seperated as a member of the Ready Reserve
> > > > 4. Still on Active Duty
> > > >
> > > > Still on AD covers all known actions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Certainly by Lee.
> >
> >
> > Yes, Lee knows his status, but few others would..........if everything was
> just
> > rubberstamped, passed along the routine trail......but things are just not
> right
> > if one looks deep enough.
> >
>
> That is the purpose of this exchange - to show that while you and I may not
> agree on why some "things are just not right" we still agree that they are
> "not right".
>

It's just looking down differant paths that head in the same directions, I
stop every once in awhile more then you to consider what I see down the
path. There is no way we can both see the same things.

snip

> >
> > > >
> > > > This is money that the Red Cresent gave Lee while he was in Minsk, not
> the
> > > > money for the trip. Offical confirmation of dependency or hardship
> has to
> > > come
> > > > from the Red Cross......there is no Red Cross confirmation in the
> > > papertrail.
> > > >
> > >
> > > WOW!
> > > How did you even THINK to make that connection?
> >
> > It's common knowledge in the military system. The Red Cross was used as
> cover
> > since, we fought the Soviets in WWI when the RC was just forming it's deep
> connection
> > with the military. We attactually did fight one battle by mistake with
> Soviet forces on
> > Soviet soil..........these RC guys over there might have caused that
> battle.......I wrote
> > about this many years ago. The same consideration in WWII, JFK's sister
> worked for
> > the Red Cross in England, with the guy who would later replace Papa Joe,
> in the Court
> > of St. James, he also later headed the forrunning OSS operations that
> became the
> > base of the CIA.
> >
>
> You work in a box that has no sides...

I don't like to be crowded or restrict my thoughts.

>
>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's hard to say it was to save time......but the two papertrails are
> > > there and they
> > > > conflict.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're right. Maybe it wasn't to save time.
> > > Maybe it was to create dual paper trails.
> > > One for Oswald.
> > > And one for the USMC.
> > >
> >
> > The truth about the two seperate paper trails and the confirmation of both
> being
> > part of this "project" were/are presented as being "destroyed". That is
> not what
> > I believe.
> >
>
> No. I would not believe that either.
> Someone would have to show me where it happened again elsewhere.
>

Many of the records of individuals, presented along the lines of Oswald,
had their records "destroyed" by Congressional Order in the 70's.
Because of Lee's connection to the assassination, I doubt those records
were destroyed, only "transfered" and secured......for a couple more
years.


> > >
> > > Which brings me back to J.W. Poindexter's rank. A Lt. Colonel in 1951
> > > could be out of the colonel business by 1959.
> >
> > A buck private could have handled this........rank is not the issue or
> concern.
> > It's actually better to have lower ranking individuals handling this.
> Easier for PD.
> >
> >
>
> I was thinking that if our Lt. Colonel was now a "Brigadier General" (A not
> impossible 8 year step in rank) that his approval might cause those below to
> follow suit with theirs.

To make things work......without question.....it's always best to use
routine proceedures without imput from higher up. That's why I think you
have the wrong Poindexter in mind.

> > >
> > > Which brings you to the Red Cross?
> >
> > Yes, there is one letter by Dr. Howard, dated Sept 3rd, that is DIRECTED
> TO
> > THE RED CROSS. I also believe Lee was pissed at his mother for doing
> things
> > without going through the RC.......I believe there are letters on
> this....but I don't
> > have them handy right now.....Lee's pay records would have been closed out
> on
> > 11 Sept. 1959. That would mean that the approval would have been closed
> out
> > at the same time as not being needed.
> >
>
> A facinating line of thought. I only remember his Red Cross payment in terms
> of rubles. How close did it come to $ 90?

Very close......depending on the rate of exchange.....700 rubles would
equal just about the same.........plus or minus a few buck and change.

>
>
> > >
> > > If so, brilliant thinking.
> > >
> >
> > One has to first understand the basics.....which have never been presented
> properly.
> > I first questioned the absences of the confirmation required by the Red
> Cross within
> > the offical records. It was at first a seperate consideration only in the
> fact that not
> > all the "required" documents were in the files presented......but nobody
> would even
> > look, without considerinig all the factors of known history, on going at
> the time. It
> > was later that I associated that amount of money that Lee was given in the
> USSR.
>
> I'm still really impressed - right or wrong - that you had this thought.
> It makes perfect sense.
>
> But I'm a "CTer" so that agreement is to be expected.

It's one of those things to consider....but not critical. We know Lee got
funding........as did some of the other defectors.......so it's just a
consideration.

>

> > >
> > > >
> >
> > Yes, but it means moving on from the discharge.........
> >
>
> Would you care to get more specific on your July 25, 1963 date and the logic
> behind it?
> That has never entered into my research.
>

It's actually too much to go into....but that's the date his downgraded
discharge became final......and the point that Lee could now be acting on
his own, in the direction of killing JFK, outside of anything that he
might have been connected to in the past. Perhaps in another thread, once
this one is done.


>
> >
> >
> > > > Lee was not qualified to be part of the primary considerations of the
> > > exchange
> > > > but was on a very low level.....as a "operator".
> > >
> > >
> > > Of the system being turned over?
> >
> > Yes, the system.........or it's adaption.......I believe that they needed
> somebody
> > that would be able to work the system from both sides......which maybe the
> > reason Lee was later asked to stay and things had to be worked out for him
> > to stay and work where the Soviet versions would be made....in Minsk.
> It's
> > also my opinion that Lee was actually useless in this.....but that's
> another issue
> > on his training.
> >
>
> Yes. He probably was useless in this but you'd have to be an idiot on the
> Soviet side to accept the technology while refusing what appears to be the
> operator.
>

There are other considerations, based on the actions of other "defectors"
that also come into play.......but one has to actually go back and
consider Lee's actual "duty" while in the USMC and how much exposure to
the equipment actuall used as well as training on new equipment. The
orginal system could have been "adapted" in various areas that are outside
of Lee's "training" while he was in the USSR.

>
> >
> >
> > > > The person crossing the border had to be one that the KGB would
> approve
> > > of.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed. But I don't think KGB approval of Oswald was in place in
> September
> > > - which may explain the "slow boat".
> >
> > They are in my opinion the ones that insisted that the individual be a
> "nobody"
> > in the first place. So they would not have to spend a great deal of time
> or effort
> > in "watching him" which is exactly what happened. Low ranking KGB
> operatives
> > and very low priority concerning his activities. My account has to take
> everything
> > into consideration in support of the desires of both the USSR and the USA.
> >
>
> You have given this area more thought than I have.
> I had it narrowed down to "The Soviets were expecting him", identified Leo
> Setyaev as a participant, and left it at that.
>

The KGB play a major role here.....and, most of the material that they
have "shared" is still yet to be fully examined in detail. There is more
"one sided" views, then those based on all the considerations.

> >
> > > > > > Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct
> 31.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll drag mine out and post them.
> > > > > They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read them.
> > > >
> > > > The Oct 31 letter is the first........Snyder gives the message with
> "the
> > > wrong address",
> > > > which confirms Lee is who he is and all is well. The address in the
> > > letter is not
> > > > Lee's last known address....it is the address he lived at when he join
> the
> > > USMCR.
>
> I cruised right past this the first time.
> But that would be one way of confirming Lee is "who he is" but, in another
> post, you have Snyder an innocent pigeon. How do you reconcile this
> observation with your lack of suspicion towards Snyder? Or is the address
> given not for Snyder but for those who receive Snyder's message?
>

First consideration is that it is not for Snyder.....I don't believe that
it was for Snyder. It's not that I lack "suspicion towards Snyder", I do,
just don't think he is fully responsible or part of the "plan".


> >
> > they are important but too much outside of the "early out" that still has
> to be
> > ended.
>
>
> Lead and I shall follow.

The discharge early out is just about over or it can be ended.

>
> >
> >
> > > How do we rule that out that he 1) Didn't go see the base legal attorney
> > > for his help 2) Didn't research the codes himself?
> >
> > We can't rule these considerations out.......they follow the
> >
> > 1. Seperation on his own
> >
> >
> > > Not that I'm arguing. My proof that Lee couldn't act alone is while he's
> > > in the USSR - not in his method of obtaining his discharge.
> >
> > You need the discharge, the entry, the stay and the return as well to put
> everything
> > in proper perspective.
> >
>
> For lurkers, JKO is telling us that, as we see more of the picture, at some
> point Lee can no longer be believed as acting "alone".
> We are discussing his discharge and "defection" and not the JFK
> assassination.
>

Too much of known history is ignored, because it can and does raise
"Reasonable Doubt" about the offical version.

>
> > >
> > > Again, let's assume Morely is reading this (I sent him an e mail on this
> > > but he's slow on opening and reading them.).
> > >
> >
> > He has CIA material coming in Dec......so chances are he has a full plate.
>
> He has replied to me already twice.
> Evidently, you're on his e mail list too?
>
> If so, that's good. He'll be able to pick his own path as we lay out the
> minefield.
>

Yes, I'm on his list for some things.....but we don't exchange alot, my
Cuba work is far more in line with what he is now involved in then this
stuff. I think we should both "go to Cuba" to get files from Castro, that
directly relate to his interest and mine. I now have the funds for my
team, for a trip after the first of the year....if he's interested.....I'm
sure he can get support.

Jeff, if you are reading or trying to follow this....consider Cuba......as
a first priority to me.

jko




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 22:46:07 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n1fri3h1kcse6@corp.supernews.com...


> .
> > > >
> > >
> > > We have Lee openly offering the USSR his radar knowledge - And the USMC
> > > knowing he's going to make the offer via actions of Lt. Ayers. So
> > > "information sharing" is going to occur without the knowledge of the
> rest of
> > > the American "establishment".
> >
> > Or the population of the USSR.......both sides do not want alot of public
> > attention on this in case it "fails".
>
> Even if it doesn't fail, it can be critisized as aiding the enemy by both
> sides. It's a debate neither side needs.
>

Which is why it was handled as it was. It worked for both sides.

> > >
> > > The moment Lee walks into the USEMB Moscow on Oct 31, 1959 he is no longer a
> > > "courier".
> >
> > He was only a "courier" crossing the boarder......he brings nothing back
> > but his "diary".
> >
>
> The "diary" serves only to protect him against prosecution.
> What he does bring back of interest is "The Kollective".


"diary" and "The Kollective......same thing basically.


> > The support for this is that Lee has
> > > walked into the USEMB with an expired Soviet visa.
> >
> > Correct. All the details may not have been worked out prior to this time.
> > (within the 10 day period)
>
> Yes. The "picture" has a problem here. We both see Lee with an expired
> visa in Moscow. That's unusual. However, I can't find a reason to dwell on
> it.

People in general do not know of or consider the visa issues. Lee
purchases a 10 day voucher for a 6 day stay (visa). Considering his
limited funds, and all the actions that's a warning sign.

> >
> > If Lee entered Moscow to
> > > "defect" - why hasn't he entered the USEMB before his visa expired? And
> why
> > > have the Russians not already carted him off?
> > >
> >
> > If Lee had done all of this during the first few days......it would be
> > clear that he was acting on his own. The Soviets had no problem kicking
> > out Petrulli even with all the "press coverage".
>
> For lurkers, Petrulli was a mentally ill American citizen who went to
> Moscow, went to the USEMB there, renounced his American citizeship, and
> then applied for Soviet citizenship. The Soviets denied his request and,
> noting Petrulli's Russian tourist visa had expired, requested the
> Americans to "get rid of him". The US responded that they could not -
> since Petrulli had renounced his citizenship. Finally, the only way to get
> Petrulli out was to declare him insane and that he lacked the capability
> to understand the effects of renouncing his US citizenship and, therefore,
> was still an American citizen.

Petrulli's brother was also associated with U.S. intelligence.

>
> Lee Harvey Oswald should have been handled in the same way - with the
> Soviets notifying the USEMB that Lee's tourist visa had expired and
> requesting he be removed. Yet the Soviets never made any such request with
> Oswald even though his case his virtually identical to Petrulli's. The
> only difference between them is that Petrulli went to the USEMB first and
> the Soviets second, while Oswald went to the Soviets first and the USEMB
> second. By not requesting he be removed, Lee was receiving "special
> treatment" by the Soviets.
>

The sucide plays into effect here......Petrulli was not sucidal.....a
skilled sheet metal worker......Lee "sucidal" and "unskilled". If one job
is open (say the one in Minsk).....which "defector" would be better to
keep as a skilled sheet metal worker?

>
>
> >
> > > Allow me to conclude you're suggesting somethng like that the "delivery"
> > > Oswald made was not of a material item, but of knowledge - such as
> > > operational knowledge.
> >
> > Not totally.......it can only be assumed that Lee "studied" the TM's on
> > the various items of equipment.....or that he had exposure to the system
> > while on duty in Calif or Atsugi.....I believe he might have been exposed
> > to Project TP in the development stages......that required radar
> > operators......but I believe his knowledge is very limited.
>
> But TP operational knowledge would have been a nice "carrot" to go with TP
> technical knowledge. The Russians would think twice about kicking him out
> if they believed he had "operational knowledge". They might even send him
> to where the TP radars were being built in order to demonstrate training
> and operation of the completed system.
>

By nature of his prior service, he would have enough "background" to be of
use, however I doubt he had the technical skills. I beleive it was to
"later" illustrate the co-operation, if they wanted to do this. The U.S.
agreed in the hopes they would learn inside information......as you
mention later.

>
> >
> > The Russians expect to debrief him of that knowledge
> > > and then send him back. But they soon find the debriefing is much more
> > > complex than they expected.
> >
> > They might have some changes......that would require them to know if the
> > US operator might have problems......Lee could fll in on the spot.
>
> And the price of finding out whether he's useful or not is small.
>

Staying has other values.....but like I've said.......nothing that was
part of the work as a "courier". This all happend once material was
handed over.


> I don't have any problem with the above logic. Where I see problems is the
> assumption that Kruschev had informed "all" about the incoming TP
> technology. Everyone has a political opponent. Krushev could no more tell
> everyone in the USSR about the deal than the US could tell everyone in
> America about it.

The defection of two others during this period....overshadows all
considerations of anybody on Oswald. I believe Lee brought the material
these two defectors could not, in a manner that was very "low key".

>
> Lee had to be gotten past Kruschev's critics that didn't know about "TP"
> (Assuming that was the shared knowledge). Kruschev had to make a case to
> his political enemies for why LHO should be let in - without telling them
> about TP. Further, the case had to explain why Oswald was let in but
> Petrulli wasn't since Oswald's admission now represented a "change in
> policy" by the Supreme Soviet.
>

Niki only had to approve of things......details would be hidden in the
"normal" course of Soviet affairs.


> I believe "she" made the case for Kruschev before the Supreme Soviet that
> Lee represented a propaganda opportunity. Here was someone so sincere in
> his anti-American beliefs that he preferred "suicide" to returning to the
> US. The idea was then planted by Leo Setyaev of letting Lee speak on Radio
> Moscow about the horrors of life in the USA and how he preferred "death"
> to returning.
>

Basically......this case she "made" is the change in plans.....requiring
Lee to become a "defector".

> The critics conceded but the KGB still was ordered to place Oswald under
> surveillance as a possible spy.
>

The KGB was the biggest "critic".

> >
> > > It runs past Lee's visa expiration date which
> > > the Russians must now ignore and continue to allow him to stay as the
> > > debriefing continues. Finally, the Russians realize the only way to get
> the
> > > info in a correct and understandable manner, is to allow Lee to stay
> (Which
> > > raises the KGB suspicion that Lee is a spy). Lee is therefore granted a
> one
> > > year visa.
> >
> > Arrangement also have to be approved stateside......
>
> I have described the actions of Richard Snyder on Oct 28, 1959 as evidence
> said arrangements had been arranged and approved from "stateside".

They are part of the "overall"......but not part of the EOP
goals.......you have to show a direct link between Synder and the EOP/5412
Committee on this. You can't.....nor can I......which is why I basically
leave him out.


> >
> > >
> > > Do I believe this? No.
> > >
> >
> > ok.......I've seen nothing so far that really counters the full extent of
> > my considerations.....but let's see what you got.
> >
> > > Lee does not have to walk into the USEMB at all in the above scenario.
> The
> > > Russians can grant Lee a one year visa without Lee ever seeing Snyder.
> Lee's
> > > passport is good for two years. So Lee does not need to renounce his US
> > > citizenship. Nor is there any reason for him to announce that he intends
> to
> > > give the Soviets his radar knowledge. Neither of these actions are of
> any
> > > value if the Russians have already agreed to take Lee. There are only
> useful
> > > if they have not.
> >
> > Doing otherwise removes all the PD of both sides.
>
> Sorry.
> PD? Political diplomacy?

Pausiable Denial.........but dealing with the "diplomacy" of the exchange.

>
> If so, I agree that the Soviets had to erngage in "political diplomacy"
> with their own Supreme Soviet to get Lee approved. However, it was not
> fully succcessful. Lee's request for Soviet citizenship was turned down by
> the opposition (An actual benefit to the US but an approval that Richard
> Snyder was prepared to deal with if it happened.). He was granted a one
> year "stateless person's" visa which, in fact, was the best of all worlds
> for both Kruschev and the SGA, although Lee's opponents did not know that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Snyder's planning for Lee's return began three days before Lee even
> entered
> > > the USEMB to renounce his citizenship. On Oct 28, 1959 Snyder informed
> Mr.
> > > Boster of his intention, which he "had so far taken" of not actively
> seeking
> > > information from the Soviets on Americans who had accepted Soviet
> > > citizenship - with the intention of deliberately not revoking that
> > > American's citizenship "in order to leave such avenues to repatriation
> as
> > > possible open to future contingency."
> >
> > Advance knowledge.......or based on the last month's activities concerning
> > the US screw up of handling the Petrulli affair?
> >
>
> The Petrulli affair cannot be applied to Snyder's memo. Let's use
> Petrulli's case versus Snyder's Oct 28 memo. Snyder's memo covers Webster
> - not Petrulli - as he specifically addresses Americans being granted
> Sovet citizenship (which Petrulli was not) and the actions he should take
> in terms of revoking (Webster's) citizenship. It does not aply to
> Petrulli.

I disagree here on the application towards the previous actions of
Petrulli, which had far greater news coverage then Websters. It can't be
ignored in relationship to this letter.

>
> Webster is specifically named in the memo but the problem is that it
> doesn't apply to Webster either. Webster was granted Soviet citizenship on
> September 9, 1959. Webster told Richard Snyder on October 17, 1959, that
> he had applied for Soviet citizenship and filled out a form entitled
> "Affidavit for Expatriated Person", which, I presume, met the requirements
> for renouncing his American citizenship.
>

Mentioning Webster, shows that this letter does is not limited to the
actions of Oswald.


> Yet Snyder's memo was written as if Webster had "realized his error" and
> applied to return to the US. As of Oct 28, 1959, he had not.
>

Snyder dosen't appear to me to have all the facts.......which is why I
feel he is out of the main loop.

> So either Snyder is guessing that Webster is about to request to return to
> the US or he's guessing that Lee Harvey Oswald is about to walk into his
> office three days later.

It's not clear yet that Oswald would be required to "walk in". You have
to show that a plan was in effect for Lee to "defect" after this letter is
written. You can't.

>
> Snyder has absolutely no possibility of guessing Webster's actions because
> he has no reason to believe that Webster will ever request to return to
> the US at the time he wrote the memo.
>
> It is clear from reading the memo that Snyder was referring to future
> cases of renounciation and he is three days away from that very case.

The timing is always a issue.......but you have yet to show the plan as a
counter to my basic outline.

>
>
> > >
> > > IOW, if word reached Snyder that Lee had taken Soviet citizenship,
> Snyder
> > > would not seek confirmation of that fact from the Soviet authorities but
> > > would, instead, continue to treat Lee as an American citizen (in direct
> > > contradiction to regulations) in order to facilitate Lee's "future
> > > repatriation" back to the US.
> > >
> > >
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0062b.htm
> >
> > Your overlooking the bad press the US got concerning Petrulli. Synder had
> > sent Petrulli's passport back the day it was given to him by Petrulli.
>
> Snyder acted by the book with Petrulli. Snyder then decided not to act "by
> the book" with Oswald. But you can't use Petrulli as the reason for that
> because Petrulli wasn't granted Soviet citizenship and Snyder specifically
> addresses his memo to Americans who are granted Soviet citizenship.

Lee was not granted "citizenship" at this time, so by your own reasoning
it does not apply to Oswald.

>
> > The USDS would not issue a new one, screwing Petrulli. Synder never sent
> > Lee's passport back, even though it was NO LONGER VALID........you are
> > forgetting Lee crossed out his address on his passport.....making it
> > "void"......and against the law to deface btw.
>
> Snyder never shared with State that Lee had crossed out his address on his
> passport to render it void. He acted at all times as if the passport was
> valid. If he did not, why then did he return it to Lee and then accept it
> as valid knowing it wasn't?
>

Synder mentions the issue of the address being crossed out. It's what
started my examination on this problem of the passport. The issue is why
he "kept it" in the first place. No state department LOI was issued in
"support" of this new Synder SOP dealing with "defectors".


> The evidence shows that, at all points in time, beginning three days
> before Lee even appeared in his office, Snyder was preparing for LHO (or
> someone EXACTLY like him) to return to the US in direct contradiction to
> regulations.
>

Who knew that Snyder would still be at this assignment, on the surface
Snyder was trying to get greater and more detailed instructions on how to
handle these types of cases in the future. I accept that on face value.

>
> >
> > I believe even the "offical version" mentions that letter is based on
> > Petrulli not Lee.
>
> You can find the "official version" in Volume IV page 269 of the Warren
> Report:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0138b.htm
>
> Snyder elected not to accept Lee's renounciation of his US citizenship
> "until the action of the Soviet authorities on his request for Soviet
> citizenship is known or the Department advises."
>

Still relates to the Petrulli case.

> Unfortunately, this is in in direct contradiction to his memo of Oct 28
> where he states the policy, that he "had so far taken" in direct
> opposition to regulations, NOT TO ACT "when the action of the Soviet
> authorities on his (insert Lee) request for Soviet citizenship is
> known..."
>
> Snyder told his superiors one thing on Oct 28, 1959 and the WC another.

Does the above counter your own position?........I think it does on the
citizenship issue. However the "testimony" does put some question to
Synders actions and role in the whole thing.

>
> The memo to Mr. Gene Boster is discussed on page 271. Snyder admits it
> does "not refer to any particular case".
>
> When asked if his memo was "motivated by the Petrulli case?" He replied,
> "No. I don't think it was."
>

This is actually where Petrulli comes in during the "offical account" that I
include Petrulli as the main subject of that Synder letter.


> On page 272, Dulles pointed out that Snyder's logic in his memo could only
> apply to incompetent persons such as Petrulli and to no one else, such as
> Oswald. To which Snyder replied, "This is a question of law to which I
> cannot answer."
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0141b.htm

I happen to agree with Dulles on this.......as well as Synder's answer.
He is outside of the loop on this "legal issue".

>
> Yet, on Oct 28, 1959, Snyder did have an answer to the law. In direct
> defiance of regulations he would not accept Oswald's renounciation of his
> American citizenship, as he "had so far taken", even if the Soviet
> authorities informed him they had granted Oswald Russian citizenship.
>
> As long as Richard Snyder is sitting behind that desk in Moscow, Lee
> Harvey Oswald is coming HOME.

Look at your own comments........it's a issue or question that is
"a question of law to which I cannot answer." He still outside of
the main loop. Which is why I stated the following:


> > Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship regardless.........he
> > can't. There is a very complex legal process to go through.
>

You actually "support" that with your responses.

> He successfullu revoked Webster's.
> He successfully revoked Petrulli's.
> You can argue that Webster and Petrulli were right there in front of him to
> do it - but then so was Lee.
> Snyder handled Lee different from Webster and Petrulli and without
> permission or instruction to do so.
>

Exactly my point all from the beginning. Based on the previous two cases,
Synder should have had Oswald detained or arrested.....and let those that
can handle the "legal questions" do so.....or at least started the
"investigation" while Lee was there. He did not. You use this to
indicate Snyder is behind all of this.....I use it to show he is out of
the loop and does NOTHING that he should have done in the first place.



> >
> > Petrulli established the foundation..........so Lee can be
> > "ignored"......having Lee stay beyond the 10 days.....required Lee to
> > become the "defector" if he only went over as a courier....he would have
> > moved on without any of the "defector" issue ever coming into play.
>
> Petrulli did NOT establish the foundation. Snyder established the
> foundation - three days before Lee walked into his office. Lee was the
> first American defector to fit the description of Snyder's memo, which he
> advised Mr. Gene Boster was now HIS policy. No previous American had EVER
> received the special treatment Snyder afforded Oswald. The rules were
> changed three days before Oswald walked in the door.

Snyder's "policy" was not approved by the powers to be.....which had to
approve of these proceedures.....in fact changes were being made at this
period. It's far more complex then what you want to get in.

>
>
> Next, having "Lee stay beyond 10 days" did "require Lee to become the
> 'defector'..." Snyder testified that Petrulli had stayed in Moscow a
> "number of weeks" before his application was rejected - so it was possible
> for someone to stay past their visa expiration in Moscow if they were
> requesting Soviet citizenship.
>

He did so "in limbo" without support of the Supreme Soviet.....he was
basically under house arrest by the Soviets, until he was down to his last
pennies. At which time he was allowed to fly back to the U.S. His
citizenship request was denied well before this time.


> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0139a.htm
>
> For this reason I do not attach any significance to Lee's Soviet visa
> being expired when he arrived at the USEMB. He had already applied for
> Soviet citizenship and, if the Russians examined him as they did Petrulli,
> it could be expired by a "number of weeks" and he'll still be in Moscow.

The call was for the Soviets......nobody else. They could have kicked him
out......or followed things as they did. This was a "special case".
Normally the Soviets are very strict about "visa's" and the time, as
indicated in the "offical" notice of Oswald to "leave" because his visa
has expired.

>
> Thus, I agree entirely with your following statement:
>
> "if he only went over as a courier....he would have moved on without any
> of the "defector" issue ever coming into play."
>
> Since, if he only went over as a courier the defector issue never would
> have come into play, I conclude he is more than just a courier or -if he
> is - the complexities of what is being transferred are very time
> consuming.
>

I can't see how you can conclude he was anything more then just a courier?

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > For lurkers, James and I can present loads of evidence showing the USG
> > > brought Lee back from the USSR and I will demonstrate that Snyder is
> > > involved with every step.
> > >
> >
> > YOU have still not countered the basic outline presented.......don't worry
> > about him coming back yet.........
>
> I can't make your case for you.
> You have to do that.

You have still not countered the basic outline. I presented my case and
you said:

> > Do I believe this? No.

>
> I believe I have just countered your "Petrulli" arguments.

nope you actually support the arguement........and provide the sections
in support.

>
>
> >
> > > For the moment, James and I have established that Lee's actions in
> avoiding
> > > "political meetings" and applying to Patrice Lumumba University while in
> the
> > > USSR are all related to his having an "Active" USMC status and that he
> is
> > > PLANNING TO COME HOME from day one - And to avoid legal entanglements
> when
> > > he does. To that, I have made the additional arguments that:
> > >
> > > 1) The USMC knew Lee would show up in the USEMB threatening to "share
> > > knowledge" with the Soviets and, therefore, altered his discharge status
> on
> > > September 12 in order to be able to claim Lee was not "Active" - and
> kept
> > > this alteration a secret from Oswald.
> >
> > nope.....
>
> Lee told Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency discharge" - the very
> discharge status he left the USMC on 9/11/59.
>

Why is all this being kept secret from Lee if he is part of the whole
process?


> Lt. Ayers changed it on 9/12/59. How would Lee know that? And, apparently,
> he did not, by his answer to Priscilla Johnson. His request to attend
> Patrice Lumumba University and your own observation that Lee avoided the
> worker "political meetings" (brainwashing sessions) are all indications
> Lee believed his discharge states was "Active".
>

Lee is presenting his "story".....not telling PJM the whole truth. Why
should he spill the beans, that nobody wants the press to know????????


> > where is the need to keep things secret from
> > Oswald.......??????????
>
> If Lee knew his discharge status was "Inactive" (hardship) he could take
> the money for the trip and go buy himself a new car with it. What would
> prevent him from doing that?
>

He would not get the money if he was not part of the plan.........if he is
part of the plan......there is nothing here to keep secret from Lee.
There is alot to keep secret from PJM. Think about it. You are basing
your opinon or view on the premise that Lee is telling PJM the whole truth
and nothing but the truth.


> > nope.......the letter you are using is in relationship to Petrulli.
>
> Snyder denied it was in relationship with Petrulli.

You provided details that support my position not yours.

>
> > We
> > have 23 defectors to worry about in all this.....NOT JUST LEE.
>
> Which one of the defectors previous o Oswald would have been allowed, as
> policy by the consular, to accept Soviet citizenship without having his
> American citizenship revoked?

You miss the point on the other defectors.

>
> >
> > >
> > > 3) That Lee Harvey Oswald sent a message to Snyder from his hotel, using
> > > Priscilla Johnson as the courier, informing him that he had been granted
> a
> > > Soviet visa to stay in the USSR.
> > >
> >
> > In my opinion Lee informs Snyder in person that Sat afternoon when embassy
> > is closed and nobody is around.
> >
>
> If so, it's missing from Snyder's testimony.
> However, it's included in Priscilla Johnson's notes of the interview.

It would NOT BE in Snyder's testimony.....or would it ever surface, under
normal circumstance......the assassination changed all that.....and some
things were left out. You again connsider everything Lee told PJM as the
truth.

>
> Either way, we both have Oswald relaying this info to Snyder who does what
> with it?
>

Nothing as directed.....until he hears otherwise.

> > > One cannot expect James and I to agree on everything. The odds of that
> > > happening are about the same as two composers going into separate rooms
> and
> > > writing the same symphony. But we both know our notes and our
> instruments.
> > > We know when something is in tune and when it is not.
> >
> > I haven't seen your primary counter yet.....
> >
>
> Let me know if you still haven't and, if so, exactly what I'm supposed to
> counter?

The basic outline you said you didn't believe. What you provide here
still does not counter my position.


> >
> > >
> > > For JKO, IMO, Lee knows he's headed for the USEMB in Moscow when he
> bought
> > > his ship ticket.
> >
> > Not really sure he would have to go there if no changes were made after he
> > arrived.
> >
>
> The only audience to Lee's show in Moscow are the Soviets. Please explain
> how Lee's appearance at the USEMB to renounce his citizenship has anything
> to do with our side? What do WE need to see this for?
>

It's important in several way "after the change". It now establishes
Oswald as a "defector".....instead of a "student" traving Europe before
getting a job.

>
> >

> >
> > I believe that U-2's were part of the required testing due to the alt they
> > could reach.
>
> I was wondering how this could work - but doesn't this require sharing the
> radar eye technolgy to also include sharing a U-2?

No anymore then they already had. There were KGB agents at Atsugi at
the same time as Oswald....you want their names?


>
> >Atsugi is a Naval Air base and it was a Navy R&D project.
> > Col Whalen, and others recruiting for NSA for the new U-2 base in
> > Japan.......if the project fit with Ike's monitoring system.....there was
> > little to operate. Whalen btw turned out to be a Soviet spy.
> >
>
> It's probably cheaper to buy spies than to develop your own technology. I
> wonder how many times the Soviets did this?
>
Quite abit....in many areas.



> >
> > Is Snyder your counter? I consider him......but not directly connected to
> > anything Lee is doing.......outside being the "public contact". There has
> > to be "offical" and acceptable contact......Snyder fits that role just
> > doing as directed......even if from Lee.
> >
>
> You, yourself, have Snyder returning a "null and void" passport to Oswald
> and then accepting it as "valid".
>

It's made "valid" afterwards......

> Richard Snyder is my Lt. Ayers.
> But it goes higher than that.
> Someone else in State is acting independently of the Secretary of State's
> authority. I would suggest that RFK/JFK have bypassed their own Secretary.
> Rusk's name appears nowhere in the paper trail.
> But that's another post.
>

> > >
> > > JKO and I agree that Lee's "suicide" attempt was not genuine although I
> > > believe Lee actually did cut his wrist for purposes of "show".
> >
> > I don't think Lee's scar was the normal or average sucide attempt scar.
> > But I never saw it.....have you?
> >
>
> No. But it's description of the cut is in the opposite direction of what it
> should be for a "serious" suicide attempt.
> Indeed, he might just as well have cut his finger and called it a "suicide"
> attempt.
>
my point

> > >
> > > JKO and I both agree that there were plans for Lee to return to the US
> "at
> > > some point". One can easily determine that "at some point" would have
> been
> > > before Lee's passport expired.
> > >
> >
> > Lee's passport was made invalid by Lee before he gave it to Synder.
> >
>
> Who recognized it as valid anyway -and without your suspicion?
>

Defacing the passport.....was against the law......with or without my
suspicion. If it would ever be "used" it would be "rejected" because of
the address being crossed out. But it was never intented for use without
USDS approval......after this "change of plans", which is why it was given
to Synder. He kept it to insure the guy that "returned" was in fact
Oswald and not some individual connected to any "two Oswald" effort.

>

> > > What JKO is referring to is that being enrolled at Albert Schweitzer
> College
> > > allowed Lee, even if he never actually attended class, to be overseas
> for
> > > "educational purposes". Lee could be almost anywhere in the world in
> 1960,
> > > no questions asked. As I recall, ASC had been used by active reserve
> > > officers as means to travel abroad on military assignments.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not really into all the possible uses of ASC.........I'm letting Greg
> > have those headaches.
> >
>
> I was hoping he would post that argument as well. However, I can post it to
> the extent of showing Lee's "acting alone" to reach the USSR is highly
> questionable.

Last post I read on Greg delt with Lee's hearing. Which btw would exclude
him from receiving training as a Radar Operator.



> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Not a easy task........which is why I have no problem with being
> proven
> > > wrong, with
> > > > "equal" considerations.......not just what has been "presented".
> > >
> > > If one of us is proven wrong, either by the other or by a lurker, we're
> simply
> > > narrowing down the possibilities all the more.
> > >

Works for me.

> >
> > All paths to Dallas that are wrong have to be eliminated.
> >
>
> First Officer Spock would approve.
>
So should all LN's.

jko



From: johncwatters@aol.com (john watters)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 16 Oct 2004 22:52:11 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message news:<41706f5b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mv3tv6cj4dt42@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:416e725e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >
> > > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mr94gah9g1h25@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > > Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
> > > >

Jim/Clark,

I've been away from this NG for a long time - playing with my 6 month old
daughter beats the socks off looking at countless posts re Judyth. Just
popped in tonight and came across this post...this is gold dust.

You guys (and Greg)are miles ahead of anybody else in unearthing the truth
about LHO - not just what happened on 11/22/63 but giving the lie to the
whole fairy-tale that we have all been fed (lone nut/commie/no connections
with intel etc etc).

Great to see you're still here and going so strong. Please don't stop.

John.



From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 17 Oct 2004 11:51:59 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:4171ab12@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n1fri3h1kcse6@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
> > > The support for this is that Lee has
> > > > walked into the USEMB with an expired Soviet visa.
> > >
> > > Correct. All the details may not have been worked out prior to this
time.
> > > (within the 10 day period)
> >
> > Yes. The "picture" has a problem here. We both see Lee with an expired
> > visa in Moscow. That's unusual. However, I can't find a reason to dwell
on
> > it.
>
> People in general do not know of or consider the visa issues. Lee
> purchases a 10 day voucher for a 6 day stay (visa). Considering his
> limited funds, and all the actions that's a warning sign.
>

It indicates he's planning to stay 10 days versus 6, doesn't it?


> > >
> > > If Lee entered Moscow to
> > > > "defect" - why hasn't he entered the USEMB before his visa expired?
And
> > why
> > > > have the Russians not already carted him off?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If Lee had done all of this during the first few days......it would be
> > > clear that he was acting on his own. The Soviets had no problem
kicking
> > > out Petrulli even with all the "press coverage".
> >
> > For lurkers, Petrulli was a mentally ill American citizen who went to
> > Moscow, went to the USEMB there, renounced his American citizeship, and
> > then applied for Soviet citizenship. The Soviets denied his request and,
> > noting Petrulli's Russian tourist visa had expired, requested the
> > Americans to "get rid of him". The US responded that they could not -
> > since Petrulli had renounced his citizenship. Finally, the only way to
get
> > Petrulli out was to declare him insane and that he lacked the capability
> > to understand the effects of renouncing his US citizenship and,
therefore,
> > was still an American citizen.
>
> Petrulli's brother was also associated with U.S. intelligence.

You're suggesting Petrulli was a deliberate precedent?

>
> >
> > Lee Harvey Oswald should have been handled in the same way - with the
> > Soviets notifying the USEMB that Lee's tourist visa had expired and
> > requesting he be removed. Yet the Soviets never made any such request
with
> > Oswald even though his case was virtually identical to Petrulli's. The
> > only difference between them is that Petrulli went to the USEMB first
and
> > the Soviets second, while Oswald went to the Soviets first and the USEMB
> > second. By not requesting he be removed, Lee was receiving "special
> > treatment" by the Soviets.
> >
>
> The sucide plays into effect here......Petrulli was not sucidal.....a
> skilled sheet metal worker......Lee "sucidal" and "unskilled". If one job
> is open (say the one in Minsk).....which "defector" would be better to
> keep as a skilled sheet metal worker?
>

To which "suicidal" must be expanded on to include that Soviets know said
"suicide" attempt was not genuine. A genuine attempt is a guarantee of
rejection. I note no "psychiatric examination" of Lee after the incident.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Allow me to conclude you're suggesting somethng like that the
"delivery"
> > > > Oswald made was not of a material item, but of knowledge - such as
> > > > operational knowledge.
> > >
> > > Not totally.......it can only be assumed that Lee "studied" the TM's
on
> > > the various items of equipment.....or that he had exposure to the
system
> > > while on duty in Calif or Atsugi.....I believe he might have been
exposed
> > > to Project TP in the development stages......that required radar
> > > operators......but I believe his knowledge is very limited.
> >
> > But TP operational knowledge would have been a nice "carrot" to go with
TP
> > technical knowledge. The Russians would think twice about kicking him
out
> > if they believed he had "operational knowledge". They might even send
him
> > to where the TP radars were being built in order to demonstrate training
> > and operation of the completed system.
> >
>
> By nature of his prior service, he would have enough "background" to be of
> use, however I doubt he had the technical skills. I beleive it was to
> "later" illustrate the co-operation, if they wanted to do this. The U.S.
> agreed in the hopes they would learn inside information......as you
> mention later.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The Russians expect to debrief him of that knowledge
> > > > and then send him back. But they soon find the debriefing is much
more
> > > > complex than they expected.
> > >
> > > They might have some changes......that would require them to know if
the
> > > US operator might have problems......Lee could fll in on the spot.
> >
> > And the price of finding out whether he's useful or not is small.
> >
>
> Staying has other values.....but like I've said.......nothing that was
> part of the work as a "courier". This all happend once material was
> handed over.
>
>
> > I don't have any problem with the above logic. Where I see problems is
the
> > assumption that Kruschev had informed "all" about the incoming TP
> > technology. Everyone has a political opponent. Krushev could no more
tell
> > everyone in the USSR about the deal than the US could tell everyone in
> > America about it.
>
> The defection of two others during this period....overshadows all
> considerations of anybody on Oswald. I believe Lee brought the material
> these two defectors could not, in a manner that was very "low key".
>
> >
> > Lee had to be gotten past Kruschev's critics that didn't know about "TP"
> > (Assuming that was the shared knowledge). Kruschev had to make a case to
> > his political enemies for why LHO should be let in - without telling
them
> > about TP. Further, the case had to explain why Oswald was let in but
> > Petrulli wasn't since Oswald's admission now represented a "change in
> > policy" by the Supreme Soviet.
> >
>
> Niki only had to approve of things......details would be hidden in the
> "normal" course of Soviet affairs.
>

Details below the level of Supreme Soviet could be hidden in the normal
course of affairs. But Lee's approval for a one year visa cannot be hidden
from the Supreme Soviet. It's doubtful that Niki had 100% backing and
approval from the Supreme Soviet on the "sharing of ideas" with the US.
Before the Supreme Soviet Niki must "make a case to his political enemies
for why LHO should be let in - without telling them about TP. Further, the
presented case had to explain why Oswald was let in but Petrulli wasn't
since Oswald's admission now represented a 'change in policy' by the Supreme
Soviet."


>
> > I believe "she" made the case for Kruschev before the Supreme Soviet
that
> > Lee represented a propaganda opportunity. Here was someone so sincere in
> > his anti-American beliefs that he preferred "suicide" to returning to
the
> > US. The idea was then planted by Leo Setyaev of letting Lee speak on
Radio
> > Moscow about the horrors of life in the USA and how he preferred "death"
> > to returning.
> >
>
> Basically......this case she "made" is the change in plans.....requiring
> Lee to become a "defector".

Keep in mind that I don't know what "she" did. You'll have to expand on
that.


>
> > The critics conceded but the KGB still was ordered to place Oswald under
> > surveillance as a possible spy.
> >
>
> The KGB was the biggest "critic".
>

I think this is where "unstable" originates.

> > >
> > > > It runs past Lee's visa expiration date which
> > > > the Russians must now ignore and continue to allow him to stay as
the
> > > > debriefing continues. Finally, the Russians realize the only way to
get
> > the
> > > > info in a correct and understandable manner, is to allow Lee to stay
> > (Which
> > > > raises the KGB suspicion that Lee is a spy). Lee is therefore
granted a
> > one
> > > > year visa.
> > >
> > > Arrangement also have to be approved stateside......
> >
> > I have described the actions of Richard Snyder on Oct 28, 1959 as
evidence
> > said arrangements had been arranged and approved from "stateside".
>
> They are part of the "overall"......but not part of the EOP
> goals.......you have to show a direct link between Synder and the EOP/5412
> Committee on this. You can't.....nor can I......which is why I basically
> leave him out.
>

Fair enough.
But I'll be raising his name again.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do I believe this? No.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ok.......I've seen nothing so far that really counters the full extent
of
> > > my considerations.....but let's see what you got.
> > >
> > > > Lee does not have to walk into the USEMB at all in the above
scenario.
> > The
> > > > Russians can grant Lee a one year visa without Lee ever seeing
Snyder.
> > Lee's
> > > > passport is good for two years. So Lee does not need to renounce his
US
> > > > citizenship. Nor is there any reason for him to announce that he
intends
> > to
> > > > give the Soviets his radar knowledge. Neither of these actions are
of
> > any
> > > > value if the Russians have already agreed to take Lee. There are
only
> > useful
> > > > if they have not.
> > >
> > > Doing otherwise removes all the PD of both sides.
> >
> > Sorry.
> > PD? Political diplomacy?
>
> Pausiable Denial.........but dealing with the "diplomacy" of the exchange.
>
> >
> > If so, I agree that the Soviets had to erngage in "political diplomacy"
> > with their own Supreme Soviet to get Lee approved. However, it was not
> > fully succcessful. Lee's request for Soviet citizenship was turned down
by
> > the opposition (An actual benefit to the US but an approval that Richard
> > Snyder was prepared to deal with if it happened.). He was granted a one
> > year "stateless person's" visa which, in fact, was the best of all
worlds
> > for both Kruschev and the SGA, although Lee's opponents did not know
that.

Lurkers should note no argument (Not necessarily agreement - but no
argument).


> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Snyder's planning for Lee's return began three days before Lee even
> > entered
> > > > the USEMB to renounce his citizenship. On Oct 28, 1959 Snyder
informed
> > Mr.
> > > > Boster of his intention, which he "had so far taken" of not actively
> > seeking
> > > > information from the Soviets on Americans who had accepted Soviet
> > > > citizenship - with the intention of deliberately not revoking that
> > > > American's citizenship "in order to leave such avenues to
repatriation
> > as
> > > > possible open to future contingency."
> > >
> > > Advance knowledge.......or based on the last month's activities
concerning
> > > the US screw up of handling the Petrulli affair?
> > >
> >
> > The Petrulli affair cannot be applied to Snyder's memo. Let's use
> > Petrulli's case versus Snyder's Oct 28 memo. Snyder's memo covers
Webster
> > - not Petrulli - as he specifically addresses Americans being granted
> > Sovet citizenship (which Petrulli was not) and the actions he should
take
> > in terms of revoking (Webster's) citizenship. It does not apply to
> > Petrulli.
>
> I disagree here on the application towards the previous actions of
> Petrulli, which had far greater news coverage then Websters. It can't be
> ignored in relationship to this letter.
>

Then why does Snyder deny it to the WC?
Was he lying?

> >
> > Webster is specifically named in the memo but the problem is that it
> > doesn't apply to Webster either. Webster was granted Soviet citizenship
on
> > September 9, 1959. Webster told Richard Snyder on October 17, 1959,
that
> > he had applied for Soviet citizenship and filled out a form entitled
> > "Affidavit for Expatriated Person", which, I presume, met the
requirements
> > for renouncing his American citizenship.
> >
>
> Mentioning Webster, shows that this letter does is not limited to the
> actions of Oswald.

It is limited to the "actions of Oswald" or someone exactly like him.

>
>
> > Yet Snyder's memo was written as if Webster had "realized his error" and
> > applied to return to the US. As of Oct 28, 1959, he had not.
> >
>
> Snyder dosen't appear to me to have all the facts.......which is why I
> feel he is out of the main loop.
>

main loop?
I'd agree on that entirely.

But he seems to have amazing foresight. He specifically mentions Webster as
the example of an American who might return and he does. He specifically
outlines how to get Lee out of the USSR just three days before Lee arrives
in need of such a plan - and which Lee then subsequently uses.
Afterwards, he handles Lee's case to the exclusion of all other consulars -
even when the USEMB is closed. Nobody else handles his case. If anyone else,
the risk existed of a different outcome. Yet with Snyder, there's no risks
to Lee at all.


> > So either Snyder is guessing that Webster is about to request to return
to
> > the US or he's guessing that Lee Harvey Oswald is about to walk into his
> > office three days later.
>
> It's not clear yet that Oswald would be required to "walk in". You have
> to show that a plan was in effect for Lee to "defect" after this letter is
> written. You can't.
>

"after"?
After is easy. Three days after this letter was written Lee arrived with a
plan in effect to "defect".
"Before" can also be demonstrated. Lee had studied the laws on renouncing US
citizenship. Therefore, a plan was in effect for Lee to defect "before" the
letter was written.

> >
> > Snyder has absolutely no possibility of guessing Webster's actions
because
> > he has no reason to believe that Webster will ever request to return to
> > the US at the time he wrote the memo.
> >
> > It is clear from reading the memo that Snyder was referring to future
> > cases of renounciation and he is three days away from that very case.
>
> The timing is always a issue.......but you have yet to show the plan as a
> counter to my basic outline.
>

I'm not sure I'm aware of your basic outline. But I think it goes something
like this:

1) Lee arrives to pass info
2) Afterwards, "she" decides he should stay by "defecting"
3) Lee arrives at USEMB to defect.

That's what I'm hearing.
This outline requires that:
1) Lee "forgot" to bring enough money with him to return to the US - because
his finances look "one way" to me, which is consistent with a prior plan to
"defect".
2) While in Moscow, and after his tourist visa had expired, but before he
arrived in Snyder's office - Lee studied up on US citizenship laws.
3) Snyder's letter, which outlines exactly how to get Oswald back out of the
USSR, was written as "coincidence" and that Lee just happened to have the
luck to draw Snyder was "coincidence" and that no one else but Snyder ever
handled Oswald in the USEMB was also coincidence.


> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > IOW, if word reached Snyder that Lee had taken Soviet citizenship,
> > Snyder
> > > > would not seek confirmation of that fact from the Soviet authorities
but
> > > > would, instead, continue to treat Lee as an American citizen (in
direct
> > > > contradiction to regulations) in order to facilitate Lee's "future
> > > > repatriation" back to the US.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0062b.htm
> > >
> > > Your overlooking the bad press the US got concerning Petrulli. Synder
had
> > > sent Petrulli's passport back the day it was given to him by Petrulli.
> >
> > Snyder acted by the book with Petrulli. Snyder then decided not to act
"by
> > the book" with Oswald. But you can't use Petrulli as the reason for that
> > because Petrulli wasn't granted Soviet citizenship and Snyder
specifically
> > addresses his memo to Americans who are granted Soviet citizenship.
>
> Lee was not granted "citizenship" at this time, so by your own reasoning
> it does not apply to Oswald.
>

But Lee was applying for Soviet citizenship and that request might have been
granted.
After all, it was granted to Webster.
Therefore, the letter applies to Oswald. Snyder has developed a plan by
which he will allow Oswald to return even if he renounces his citizenship
and even if he is granted Soviet citizenship. On Oct 31, 1963, this letter
covers Oswald. No matter what happens to Oswald's case after that point,
Snyder is going to hand him back his passport and send him back home.

> >
> > > The USDS would not issue a new one, screwing Petrulli. Synder never
sent
> > > Lee's passport back, even though it was NO LONGER VALID........you are
> > > forgetting Lee crossed out his address on his passport.....making it
> > > "void"......and against the law to deface btw.
> >
> > Snyder never shared with State that Lee had crossed out his address on
his
> > passport to render it void. He acted at all times as if the passport was
> > valid. If he did not, why then did he return it to Lee and then accept
it
> > as valid knowing it wasn't?
> >
>
> Synder mentions the issue of the address being crossed out. It's what
> started my examination on this problem of the passport.

He mentions this in a memo from Moscow to State?

> The issue is why
> he "kept it" in the first place. No state department LOI was issued in
> "support" of this new Synder SOP dealing with "defectors".
>

Snyder was breaking the law.

>
> > The evidence shows that, at all points in time, beginning three days
> > before Lee even appeared in his office, Snyder was preparing for LHO (or
> > someone EXACTLY like him) to return to the US in direct contradiction to
> > regulations.
> >
>
> Who knew that Snyder would still be at this assignment, on the surface
> Snyder was trying to get greater and more detailed instructions on how to
> handle these types of cases in the future. I accept that on face value.
>

Where is the reply authorizing him to do so?

> >
> > >
> > > I believe even the "offical version" mentions that letter is based on
> > > Petrulli not Lee.
> >
> > You can find the "official version" in Volume IV page 269 of the Warren
> > Report:
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0138b.htm
> >
> > Snyder elected not to accept Lee's renounciation of his US citizenship
> > "until the action of the Soviet authorities on his request for Soviet
> > citizenship is known or the Department advises."
> >
>
> Still relates to the Petrulli case.

Yes.
But Snyder testified it did not relate to Petrulli. You're saying he wrote a
letter relating to the Petrulli case which he, himself, denies doing. Why do
you not accept his denial on "face value"?

>
> > Unfortunately, this is in in direct contradiction to his memo of Oct 28
> > where he states the policy, that he "had so far taken" in direct
> > opposition to regulations, NOT TO ACT "when the action of the Soviet
> > authorities on his (insert Lee) request for Soviet citizenship is
> > known..."
> >
> > Snyder told his superiors one thing on Oct 28, 1959 and the WC another.
>
> Does the above counter your own position?........I think it does on the
> citizenship issue.

Not that I can see. He stated he would not act if the Soviets notified him
that Lee had taken Soviet citizenship.


> However the "testimony" does put some question to
> Synders actions and role in the whole thing.
>

By itself, it's not proof that Snyder is in the loop. It is, however, proof
that a plan was in place to bring Lee home in violation of regulations.
Lee's method of return was in place three days before walked through the
door.

Lee would have experienced disaster had he walked through those same doors
30 days earlier than he did.


> >
> > The memo to Mr. Gene Boster is discussed on page 271. Snyder admits it
> > does "not refer to any particular case".
> >
> > When asked if his memo was "motivated by the Petrulli case?" He replied,
> > "No. I don't think it was."
> >
>
> This is actually where Petrulli comes in during the "offical account" that
I
> include Petrulli as the main subject of that Synder letter.
>
>
> > On page 272, Dulles pointed out that Snyder's logic in his memo could
only
> > apply to incompetent persons such as Petrulli and to no one else, such
as
> > Oswald. To which Snyder replied, "This is a question of law to which I
> > cannot answer."
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0141b.htm
>
> I happen to agree with Dulles on this.......as well as Synder's answer.
> He is outside of the loop on this "legal issue".
>
> >
> > Yet, on Oct 28, 1959, Snyder did have an answer to the law. In direct
> > defiance of regulations he would not accept Oswald's renounciation of
his
> > American citizenship, as he "had so far taken", even if the Soviet
> > authorities informed him they had granted Oswald Russian citizenship.
> >
> > As long as Richard Snyder is sitting behind that desk in Moscow, Lee
> > Harvey Oswald is coming HOME.
>
> Look at your own comments........it's a issue or question that is
> "a question of law to which I cannot answer." He still outside of
> the main loop.

We can put him in the loop by his having written in the letter the words
""had so far taken". The letter served as notice to his superiors that this
would be his procedure from now on unless told otherwise. If anyone
attempted to drag him over the carpet for his handling of Lee afterwards, he
could simply produce the letter and say, "look! I notified you of this! I
stated this would be my policy unless instructed otherwise. Why did you not
instruct me otherwise if you did not approve?"

So, again, I ask where is the response authorizing Snyder to implement his
new procedure - or not implement it?

The existence of the letter itself is Snyder's "insurance policy" that he
would not be drug up on this. In fact, it took the DEATH OF A PRESIDENT to
bring his own actions under review.

As with Lee's "discharge", nobody expected this to be investigated, so the
letter "was" allowed to stand.

(I say "was" because I don't wish to represent this as fact. At this point I
am only presenting speculation consistent with the facts - And that the
facts are inconsistent with the laws and regulations.)


> Which is why I stated the following:
>
>
> > > Snyder would not have revoked Lee's citizenship regardless.........he
> > > can't. There is a very complex legal process to go through.
> >
>
> You actually "support" that with your responses.
>
> > He successfullu revoked Webster's.
> > He successfully revoked Petrulli's.
> > You can argue that Webster and Petrulli were right there in front of him
to
> > do it - but then so was Lee.
> > Snyder handled Lee different from Webster and Petrulli and without
> > permission or instruction to do so.
> >
>
> Exactly my point all from the beginning. Based on the previous two cases,
> Synder should have had Oswald detained or arrested.....and let those that
> can handle the "legal questions" do so.....or at least started the
> "investigation" while Lee was there. He did not. You use this to
> indicate Snyder is behind all of this.....I use it to show he is out of
> the loop and does NOTHING that he should have done in the first place.

How does doing nothing put him out of the loop? This is exactly what the
loop needs him to do.


But, for lurkers, JKO and I agree that Snyder did not abide by regulations
in his handling of Oswald. We both agree he did nothing - outside of
refusing to grant Lee his rights when so requested - which was yet another
violation by Snyder.

I note that Snyder prepared the way for himself to "do nothing" by a CYA
letter.just three days before he needed it.

> > >
> > > Petrulli established the foundation..........so Lee can be
> > > "ignored"......having Lee stay beyond the 10 days.....required Lee to
> > > become the "defector" if he only went over as a courier....he would
have
> > > moved on without any of the "defector" issue ever coming into play.
> >
> > Petrulli did NOT establish the foundation. Snyder established the
> > foundation - three days before Lee walked into his office. Lee was the
> > first American defector to fit the description of Snyder's memo, which
he
> > advised Mr. Gene Boster was now HIS policy. No previous American had
EVER
> > received the special treatment Snyder afforded Oswald. The rules were
> > changed three days before Oswald walked in the door.
>
> Snyder's "policy" was not approved by the powers to be.....which had to
> approve of these proceedures.

My point exactly.


>....in fact changes were being made at this
> period. It's far more complex then what you want to get in.
>
> >
> >
> > Next, having "Lee stay beyond 10 days" did "require Lee to become the
> > 'defector'..." Snyder testified that Petrulli had stayed in Moscow a
> > "number of weeks" before his application was rejected - so it was
possible
> > for someone to stay past their visa expiration in Moscow if they were
> > requesting Soviet citizenship.
> >
>
> He did so "in limbo" without support of the Supreme Soviet.....he was
> basically under house arrest by the Soviets, until he was down to his last
> pennies. At which time he was allowed to fly back to the U.S. His
> citizenship request was denied well before this time.
>
>
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0139a.htm
> >
> > For this reason I do not attach any significance to Lee's Soviet visa
> > being expired when he arrived at the USEMB. He had already applied for
> > Soviet citizenship and, if the Russians examined him as they did
Petrulli,
> > it could be expired by a "number of weeks" and he'll still be in Moscow.
>
> The call was for the Soviets......nobody else. They could have kicked him
> out......or followed things as they did. This was a "special case".
> Normally the Soviets are very strict about "visa's" and the time, as
> indicated in the "offical" notice of Oswald to "leave" because his visa
> has expired.
>
> >
> > Thus, I agree entirely with your following statement:
> >
> > "if he only went over as a courier....he would have moved on without any
> > of the "defector" issue ever coming into play."
> >
> > Since, if he only went over as a courier the defector issue never would
> > have come into play, I conclude he is more than just a courier or -if he
> > is - the complexities of what is being transferred are very time
> > consuming.
> >
>
> I can't see how you can conclude he was anything more then just a courier?
>

Wouldn't a courier have bought a two way ticket?


> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For lurkers, James and I can present loads of evidence showing the
USG
> > > > brought Lee back from the USSR and I will demonstrate that Snyder is
> > > > involved with every step.
> > > >
> > >
> > > YOU have still not countered the basic outline presented.......don't
worry
> > > about him coming back yet.........
> >
> > I can't make your case for you.
> > You have to do that.
>
> You have still not countered the basic outline. I presented my case and
> you said:
>
> > > Do I believe this? No.
>
> >
> > I believe I have just countered your "Petrulli" arguments.
>
> nope you actually support the arguement........and provide the sections
> in support.
>

Pound your point home because I'm not following.


> >
> >
> > >
> > > > For the moment, James and I have established that Lee's actions in
> > avoiding
> > > > "political meetings" and applying to Patrice Lumumba University
while in
> > the
> > > > USSR are all related to his having an "Active" USMC status and that
he
> > is
> > > > PLANNING TO COME HOME from day one - And to avoid legal
entanglements
> > when
> > > > he does. To that, I have made the additional arguments that:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The USMC knew Lee would show up in the USEMB threatening to
"share
> > > > knowledge" with the Soviets and, therefore, altered his discharge
status
> > on
> > > > September 12 in order to be able to claim Lee was not "Active" - and
> > kept
> > > > this alteration a secret from Oswald.
> > >
> > > nope.....
> >
> > Lee told Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency discharge" - the very
> > discharge status he left the USMC on 9/11/59.
> >
>
> Why is all this being kept secret from Lee if he is part of the whole
> process?
>
>
> > Lt. Ayers changed it on 9/12/59. How would Lee know that? And,
apparently,
> > he did not, by his answer to Priscilla Johnson. His request to attend
> > Patrice Lumumba University and your own observation that Lee avoided the
> > worker "political meetings" (brainwashing sessions) are all indications
> > Lee believed his discharge status was "Active".
> >
>
> Lee is presenting his "story".....not telling PJM the whole truth. Why
> should he spill the beans, that nobody wants the press to know????????
>

PJM would pick up on the difference between a "dependency" discharge and a
'hardship" discharge? And the press would care?

>
> > > where is the need to keep things secret from
> > > Oswald.......??????????
> >
> > If Lee knew his discharge status was "Inactive" (hardship) he could take
> > the money for the trip and go buy himself a new car with it. What would
> > prevent him from doing that?
> >
>
> He would not get the money if he was not part of the plan.

He could still change his mind and pocket the money if he knows he has a
"hardship" discharge.
But if he thinks he has a "dependency" discharge, he won't pocket the money
and he will complete the mission.

>........if he is
> part of the plan......there is nothing here to keep secret from Lee.

If Ayers told Lee he had a "dependency" discharge, would Lee act any
different than he did?

And if Ayers told Oswald he had a "hardship" discharge, why didn't he file
it that way on 9/11/59, their lst day together?

> There is alot to keep secret from PJM. Think about it. You are basing
> your opinon or view on the premise that Lee is telling PJM the whole truth
> and nothing but the truth.
>

No. I'm simply noting that on 9/11/59 Lee left the USMC with a "dependency"
discharge and then, on Nov 12-13, 1959 told PJM the same thing.

What's his reason for not telling her he had a 'hardship" discharge?

>
> > > nope.......the letter you are using is in relationship to Petrulli.
> >
> > Snyder denied it was in relationship with Petrulli.
>
> You provided details that support my position not yours.
>

One of us appears to be confused.

> >
> > > We
> > > have 23 defectors to worry about in all this.....NOT JUST LEE.
> >
> > Which one of the defectors previous to Oswald would have been allowed,
as
> > policy by the consular, to accept Soviet citizenship without having his
> > American citizenship revoked?
>
> You miss the point on the other defectors.
>

Evidently - but you still didn't produce any defectors prior to Oswald who
were allowed to accept Soviet citizenship while retaining their American
citizenship.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3) That Lee Harvey Oswald sent a message to Snyder from his hotel,
using
> > > > Priscilla Johnson as the courier, informing him that he had been
granted
> > a
> > > > Soviet visa to stay in the USSR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In my opinion Lee informs Snyder in person that Sat afternoon when
embassy
> > > is closed and nobody is around.
> > >
> >
> > If so, it's missing from Snyder's testimony.
> > However, it's included in Priscilla Johnson's notes of the interview.
>
> It would NOT BE in Snyder's testimony.....or would it ever surface, under
> normal circumstance......the assassination changed all that.....and some
> things were left out. You again connsider everything Lee told PJM as the
> truth.


No. He said quite a few things to her that were obviously self serving. In
fact, IMO, the entire interview was selfserving.


> >
> > Either way, we both have Oswald relaying this info to Snyder who does
what
> > with it?
> >
>
> Nothing as directed.....until he hears otherwise.
>

Yes. He did nothing with it.
Now you have him doing nothing "as directed".
Directed by who?

> > > > One cannot expect James and I to agree on everything. The odds of
that
> > > > happening are about the same as two composers going into separate
rooms
> > and
> > > > writing the same symphony. But we both know our notes and our
> > instruments.
> > > > We know when something is in tune and when it is not.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen your primary counter yet.....
> > >
> >
> > Let me know if you still haven't and, if so, exactly what I'm supposed
to
> > counter?
>
> The basic outline you said you didn't believe. What you provide here
> still does not counter my position.
>

Have I done any better?

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For JKO, IMO, Lee knows he's headed for the USEMB in Moscow when he
> > bought
> > > > his ship ticket.
> > >
> > > Not really sure he would have to go there if no changes were made
after he
> > > arrived.
> > >
> >
> > The only audience to Lee's show in Moscow are the Soviets. Please
explain
> > how Lee's appearance at the USEMB to renounce his citizenship has
anything
> > to do with our side? What do WE need to see this for?
> >
>
> It's important in several way "after the change". It now establishes
> Oswald as a "defector".....instead of a "student" traving Europe before
> getting a job.
>

How does "our" side benefit from him being a "defector" instead of a student
overseas? What changes?


> >
> > >
>
> > >
> > > I believe that U-2's were part of the required testing due to the alt
they
> > > could reach.
> >
> > I was wondering how this could work - but doesn't this require sharing
the
> > radar eye technolgy to also include sharing a U-2?
>
> No anymore then they already had. There were KGB agents at Atsugi at
> the same time as Oswald....you want their names?
>
>
> >
> > >Atsugi is a Naval Air base and it was a Navy R&D project.
> > > Col Whalen, and others recruiting for NSA for the new U-2 base in
> > > Japan.......if the project fit with Ike's monitoring system.....there
was
> > > little to operate. Whalen btw turned out to be a Soviet spy.
> > >
> >
> > It's probably cheaper to buy spies than to develop your own technology.
I
> > wonder how many times the Soviets did this?
> >
> Quite abit....in many areas.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Is Snyder your counter? I consider him......but not directly
connected to
> > > anything Lee is doing.......outside being the "public contact". There
has
> > > to be "offical" and acceptable contact......Snyder fits that role just
> > > doing as directed......even if from Lee.
> > >
> >
> > You, yourself, have Snyder returning a "null and void" passport to
Oswald
> > and then accepting it as "valid".
> >
>
> It's made "valid" afterwards......
>
> > Richard Snyder is my Lt. Ayers.
> > But it goes higher than that.
> > Someone else in State is acting independently of the Secretary of
State's
> > authority. I would suggest that RFK/JFK have bypassed their own
Secretary.
> > Rusk's name appears nowhere in the paper trail.
> > But that's another post.
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > JKO and I agree that Lee's "suicide" attempt was not genuine
although I
> > > > believe Lee actually did cut his wrist for purposes of "show".
> > >
> > > I don't think Lee's scar was the normal or average sucide attempt
scar.
> > > But I never saw it.....have you?
> > >
> >
> > No. But it's description of the cut is in the opposite direction of what
it
> > should be for a "serious" suicide attempt.
> > Indeed, he might just as well have cut his finger and called it a
"suicide"
> > attempt.
> >
> my point
>
> > > >
> > > > JKO and I both agree that there were plans for Lee to return to the
US
> > "at
> > > > some point". One can easily determine that "at some point" would
have
> > been
> > > > before Lee's passport expired.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lee's passport was made invalid by Lee before he gave it to Synder.
> > >
> >
> > Who recognized it as valid anyway -and without your suspicion?
> >
>
> Defacing the passport.....was against the law......with or without my
> suspicion. If it would ever be "used" it would be "rejected" because of
> the address being crossed out. But it was never intented for use without
> USDS approval.

That is correct. Lurkers are probably unaware that Lee can no longer use his
passport from the moment he left it at the USEMB - Even if he came back for
it the following Monday.
Beginning Oct 31, 1959, Lee is only approved for travel back to the US.
Lurkers are probably also unaware of why Lee left his passport at the USEMB.
No such action was required on his part.
But that's another post.

Now? Question? Who do you suppose crossed out the address? Snyder or Lee?

If Snyder crosses it out, he has guaranteed Lee a direct trip home. If Lee
crosses it out, when did Lee learn how to invalidate his passport?

And, BTW, do you agree that our side would have wanted that address crossed
out?


>.....after this "change of plans", which is why it was given
> to Synder. He kept it to insure the guy that "returned" was in fact
> Oswald and not some individual connected to any "two Oswald" effort.

I thought this would be the subject of a future post but - Yes - the reason
Lee has turned his passport in at the USEMB was to prevent it from falling
into Soviet hands. Webster did the same thing (For lurkers, Webster was part
of the American Exhibit in Moscow where Nixon and Kruschev held their
"kitchen debate".).

For a genuine defector to turn his passport over to the USEMB smacks of a
false defector.

>
> >
>
> > > > What JKO is referring to is that being enrolled at Albert Schweitzer
> > College
> > > > allowed Lee, even if he never actually attended class, to be
overseas
> > for
> > > > "educational purposes". Lee could be almost anywhere in the world in
> > 1960,
> > > > no questions asked. As I recall, ASC had been used by active reserve
> > > > officers as means to travel abroad on military assignments.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not really into all the possible uses of ASC.........I'm letting
Greg
> > > have those headaches.
> > >
> >
> > I was hoping he would post that argument as well. However, I can post it
to
> > the extent of showing Lee's "acting alone" to reach the USSR is highly
> > questionable.
>
> Last post I read on Greg delt with Lee's hearing. Which btw would exclude
> him from receiving training as a Radar Operator.
>

???


>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not a easy task........which is why I have no problem with being
> > proven
> > > > wrong, with
> > > > > "equal" considerations.......not just what has been "presented".
> > > >
> > > > If one of us is proven wrong, either by the other or by a lurker,
we're
> > simply
> > > > narrowing down the possibilities all the more.
> > > >
>
> Works for me.
>
> > >
> > > All paths to Dallas that are wrong have to be eliminated.
> > >
> >
> > First Officer Spock would approve.
> >
> So should all LN's.

This is not a pleasant path for LNer's to take.


::Clark::


>
> jko





From: "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 17 Oct 2004 14:49:14 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n1o8qn0jfmc3@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
> news:41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> > arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> > about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
give
> > the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> > bystanders get a foothold?
> >
> > Sincere request.
> >
> > paul seaton
> >
>
>
> Yours is a marvelous request. JKO and I tend to communicate on another
level
> from what is normally posted here. That doesn't mean we actually, truly,
> "communicate". I operate from what James calls, "inside the box". That is
to
> say that I don't sway very far from the LNer's on Oswald.

Clark ,

Many thanks for the comprehensive reply, and also to James for his.

ok so you & I agree that LHO was bona fide 'left wing', whatever the why's &
wherefore's of his sojourn in the USSR.
The other side of the coin is typified by John Watter's, / greg who believe
he was play acting.

James,

Where are you on that ? More with John & greg, right ?


Thus, every time I
> state an opinion on the evidence, JKO encourages me to think beyond that
> opinion. He does that because he has gone "further back" in time than my
> research. When I first started my research I didn't see any reason to go
> back to when Lee was living in New York or what "Poppa" Joe Kennedy was
> doing with Britain. After all, none of these activities could have
anything
> to do with 11/22/63. It seemed a waste of time to include them.
> Instead, I started with Lee's "defection" to the USSR on the assumption
that
> this is the earliest possible applicable information of any merit (I wasa
> wrong.).

Specifically ?


> It doesn't require a great deal of investigation to come to understand
that
> Lee was assisted in both reaching, and returning from, the USSR - And that
> he received assistance from both sides. JKO and I will eventually get to
> that.

OK short of a piece of paper saying "Let's help Lee get over there" or
whatever, any such conclusion is going to have to be based on circumstantial
ev, right ?
But from 2 sides of the argument you agree this was probably the case ?


> I did initially not have an answer as to why Lee had received assistance
> from BOTH SIDES. I simply had the evidence that it occurred. James, via
his
> own independent research, has tried to address WHY both sides would assist
> Lee. Hence, he has raised Project TP. Actually, it appears we approached
the
> problem from the same angle, looking for a mutual US/Soviet information
> exchange. We knew this is what we we're looking for (or, at least, I did)
> from Nixon's "kitchen debate" with Kruschev. While the debate, itself, is
of
> no historical significance, the intentions of each party were publicly
> expressed, most significantly by Kruschev who was very pointed, and
"between
> the lines" by Nixon (Krushev even made fun of Nixon's political answers as
> being those of an "attorney"). It was clear that Nixon was interested in a
> "sharing of ideas" and it was equally clear, by the examples Nixon used,
> that he was proposing a sharing of technology.

What kind of technology did he have in mind ?
( Clearly not the 'how to make a better H bomb' variety. )


This took place in July,
> 1959. Thus, we both were on the hunt for a US technolgy transfer to the
USSR
> that coincided with Lee's "defection". I was unaware of Project TP but was
> aware of a space technology transfer that took place in December, 1959 -
the
> very time Lee was in Moscowe requesting Soviet citizenship. Hence, I
> "assumed" this was the "sharing of ideas" Nixon alluded to. However, JKO's
> Project TP fits better as far as Lee is concerned because Project TP
> involved radar, a subject Lee could contribute too.

Why does Nixon want to get involved in this radar info. exchange ?


Whereas space technology
> doesn't fit Oswald. My ASSUMPTION at the time was that Lee was a "tack on"
> to the information exchange. That is to say that the US added the Soviets
> admitting Oswald to the USSR as part of the "space technology" exchange.

Why not just send some guy from business school over (overtly) to study
radio plant X or tractor plant Y ?
Why send a slightly odd marine over, covertly ?
( Not to doubt that there could be reasons, just that I don't know)

> IMO, the CIA was seeking "economic" information on the USSR which U-2's
were
> not providing, specifically the costs of goods and services and the
> organization of production (The "Kollective").

But your business school guy can do this in a much more organised fashion,
no ?
Esp since the sovs are in on the deal, why so furtive about it ?
Why is the whole 'defecting marine' yarn considered neccessary ? It's a
cover story, but since both sides know all about it, what's the point ? What
am I missing ?

Lee was to provide this
> information. He was a "spy" but not in the ordinary sense. He was not
> collecting secrets as much as he was collecting prices and production.

Again, why not Algernon Q Accountant from the Harvard Business School ?
Why Lee, of all people ?


> The evidence is quite clear that the Soviets understood Lee's mission and
> did their best to subvert it by presenting a "false economy" to Oswald.

So the US sends a non specialist over to (covertly) report on soviet
production and the sovs do their best to hoodwink him.
Seems like a pointless exercise, on the face of it ?
( Again, this is not exactly my sphere, so I am prepared to be hit with
rotten eggs any second..)


They
> put him up in his own river view apartment and they overpaid him for his
> work. They KNEW he was going "back" and they sought to control the
> information he took back with him by overstating their economy.

Why would the US put any great faith in the reporting of LHO ?
What economic expertise did he have ?
It's like sending in me to do some dentristry. Wrong guy to call, if you
want your teeth fixed, imho.


When Lee
> went back, it was their intention that he carry an exaggerated report of
the
> Soviet economy with him.
> You can read Lee's report on the Soviet economy and production on John's
> site as "The Kollective".
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm

Sure.
But you are not going to tell me that the US were going to rely on this as
some kind of guide to the soviet economic system in practice?
Maybe as general background ( life on the mean streets of Minsk..) but
surely nothing more than that ?



>
> The significance to JKO's and my exchange isn't to address what happened
on
> 11/22/63 as much as it is to state that the presented history of Oswald is
> incorrect. Had Oswald actually been what the Posnerites claim he was, he
> would have been in prison on 11/22/63 breaking rocks with a lead ball
> chained to his leg. You simply can't get around this
>
> Compare the history of defector Bruce Frederick Davis to Oswald's:
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/defector.htm#DAVIS
>
> Like Lee, Davis was US military who never renounced his US citizenship
and,
> like Lee, he was critical of US foreign policy. Like Lee, he also
requested
> the return of his American passport. And, like Lee, after requesting the
> return of his passport, he met a Rusian girlfriend. Finally, like Lee, he
> made an unauthorized visit to the USEMB to return to the US.
>
> What was waiting for him when he got home?
>
> A 10 year prison sentence at hard labor.

OK, I'd find it much easier to agree that Lee was handled strangely than I
would to agree that he was employed as some kind of economic info-bot.
The only role I can see Lee being chosen for is one where his peculiar
psychology , far out views, and his economic insights are irrelevant.

>
> Yet whern Lee returned to the US, nothing happened. Where was his 10 year
> sentence?
>
> It fell through the cracks.
>
> There is probably no person in the history of America with more government
> filing "mistakes" than Oswald. They range from his military files to his
> passport files. But, if one looks closely, the "mistakes" are not mistakes
> at all. They serve a single purpose - to keep Lee from breaking rocks with
a
> lead ball chained to his leg like Bruce Frederick Davis.

Very possible. But that's distinct from the question WHAT was he doing over
there ?
Not sure I'm entirely convinced yet, by this economic intelligence gathering
hypothesis.


> This "favoritism" has lead to all kinds of wild CT theories - from where
> he's an FBI informant to a CIA agent. But, in reality, he never worked for
> either of those two agencies (Although they were very much aware of him.).
> JKO and I have both figured out who Lee was working for in 1963
(Argueably,
> from JKO's perspective, the same people he was working for in 1956.).
>
> If you have questions, ASK.

Who was Lee working for in 1963 ?? :-)

>
> This opportunity is not likely to come along again.

O boy !!! John (Watters ) !!! Help me out here !!!

paul s

>
>
> ::Clark::
>
>
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 18 Oct 2004 09:13:47 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:4172a90c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10n1o8qn0jfmc3@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
> > news:41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> > > arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they
talking
> > > about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
> give
> > > the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> > > bystanders get a foothold?
> > >
> > > Sincere request.
> > >
> > > paul seaton
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yours is a marvelous request. JKO and I tend to communicate on another
> level
> > from what is normally posted here. That doesn't mean we actually, truly,
> > "communicate". I operate from what James calls, "inside the box". That
is
> to
> > say that I don't sway very far from the LNer's on Oswald.
>
> Clark ,
>
> Many thanks for the comprehensive reply, and also to James for his.
>
> ok so you & I agree that LHO was bona fide 'left wing', whatever the why's
&
> wherefore's of his sojourn in the USSR.
> The other side of the coin is typified by John Watter's, / greg who
believe
> he was play acting.
>
> James,
>
> Where are you on that ? More with John & greg, right ?
>
>
> Thus, every time I
> > state an opinion on the evidence, JKO encourages me to think beyond that
> > opinion. He does that because he has gone "further back" in time than my
> > research. When I first started my research I didn't see any reason to go
> > back to when Lee was living in New York or what "Poppa" Joe Kennedy was
> > doing with Britain. After all, none of these activities could have
> anything
> > to do with 11/22/63. It seemed a waste of time to include them.
> > Instead, I started with Lee's "defection" to the USSR on the assumption
> that
> > this is the earliest possible applicable information of any merit (I
wasa
> > wrong.).
>
> Specifically ?

These are rather vague issues for me but I did find myself coming back to
Lee's stay in New York as related to Juvenile Delinquency (Senator Dodd) and
and opportunity for him to become involved with issues pertaining to Dr.
Robert Morris.

Beyond the New York episode, there is the curiosity of Lee's USMC enlistment
app. It is not filled out in a manner consistent with a "new recruit". It
could have been filled out in error by his recruiter but, if so, this
recruiter must have been on the first day of his job to make this "mistake".
The other possibility is that it is not a "mistake" at all and reflects
"prior duty" by Oswald.

For example, while Lee was too young to serve in the USMC when he first
applied, there was another defense unit to which he could have applied for.
I am relating to JKO's research here though and not my own.

These events prior to Lee's enlistment counter yours and my view that Lee
was "leftwing" and he could even be considered to be on his own RW
"crusade". I don't adopt this position for two reasons. First, the evidence
supporting it, even though it all fits within the Dodd/Morris activity (and
an activity repeated in 1963), is rather vague. James may have more info and
I suspect this is where his conclusion of Lee being "RW" comes from.
Second, I reject it because I can find no instance where Lee ever behaved or
talked in anything other than a LW manner.

But LW is in the eye of the beholder. Many neocon Americans of the Bush
Administration are considered RW when, in fact, most of them have Marxist,
socialist roots from the Democratic Socialist Party. They are more rather
like Mike Paine's father than conservative Republicans (Most Neocons were
originally Democrats in "Scoop" Jackson's office). They only became
Republicans via Senator John McCain. Lee could have been a neocon by today's
standards or a Marxist by 1959's standards. Either way, for a "LWer" he can
still join the ranks of the RW if it suits his ends - just as neocons have
joined the RW to obtain their ends.


>
>
> > It doesn't require a great deal of investigation to come to understand
> that
> > Lee was assisted in both reaching, and returning from, the USSR - And
that
> > he received assistance from both sides. JKO and I will eventually get to
> > that.
>
> OK short of a piece of paper saying "Let's help Lee get over there"

There is a "sheet of paper saying, 'Let's get Lee (or someone exactly like
him) back from over there.' ". I posted it. It was written by Richard Snyder
on Oct 28, 1959.

The paperwork saying "Let's get Lee over there" exists also. It exists in
the history of his discharge, his app to ASC, the handling of Lee's
passport, and in a letter delivered to Lee's hotel by the USEMB in Moscow.

>or
> whatever, any such conclusion is going to have to be based on
circumstantial
> ev, right ?

I obtained the statement of a US officer who worked with Lee while Lee was
in the USSR.

> But from 2 sides of the argument you agree this was probably the case ?

Yes. The circumstantial evidence that Lee was assisted vastly outweighs the
counter argument. In fact, the counter argument presented by LNers is based
entirely on speculation - speculation that could only be considered if the
circumstantial evidence was ignored or simply "not produced".

>
>
> > I did initially not have an answer as to why Lee had received assistance
> > from BOTH SIDES. I simply had the evidence that it occurred. James, via
> his
> > own independent research, has tried to address WHY both sides would
assist
> > Lee. Hence, he has raised Project TP. Actually, it appears we approached
> the
> > problem from the same angle, looking for a mutual US/Soviet information
> > exchange. We knew this is what we we're looking for (or, at least, I
did)
> > from Nixon's "kitchen debate" with Kruschev. While the debate, itself,
is
> of
> > no historical significance, the intentions of each party were publicly
> > expressed, most significantly by Kruschev who was very pointed, and
> "between
> > the lines" by Nixon (Krushev even made fun of Nixon's political answers
as
> > being those of an "attorney"). It was clear that Nixon was interested in
a
> > "sharing of ideas" and it was equally clear, by the examples Nixon used,
> > that he was proposing a sharing of technology.
>
> What kind of technology did he have in mind ?
> ( Clearly not the 'how to make a better H bomb' variety. )
>

The shared technology was to reduce the risk of nuclear war by eliminating
"first strike" capability if one uses Project TP as the shared information.
If one uses the December, 1959 US space technology shared with the Russians,
the intent there was to force Congress to fund a space program or be at a
disadvantage to the Russians. The December, 1959 exchange widened the space
race further in Russia's favor, although not much, since James shows the
Russians had already reciprocated with Sputnik technology.

Both exchanges were "safe" to do.




>
> This took place in July,
> > 1959. Thus, we both were on the hunt for a US technolgy transfer to the
> USSR
> > that coincided with Lee's "defection". I was unaware of Project TP but
was
> > aware of a space technology transfer that took place in December, 1959 -
> the
> > very time Lee was in Moscowe requesting Soviet citizenship. Hence, I
> > "assumed" this was the "sharing of ideas" Nixon alluded to. However,
JKO's
> > Project TP fits better as far as Lee is concerned because Project TP
> > involved radar, a subject Lee could contribute too.
>
> Why does Nixon want to get involved in this radar info. exchange ?
>

By the US surrounding Russia with 60 nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey,
the Soviets were subject to a "first strike" attack. Their SS-6 missiles
required 24 hours to luanch and had all been found by U-2 spy photography
which had been going on since 1956 (The Russian SS-6 system did not become
operational until February, 1959*). Thus, the US could take all the SS-6
missile bases out with either a bomber strike or a nuclear missile strike if
it chose to attack first.

Diplomatically, this left the SS-6 useful only as a "first strike" weapon.
The Russians were under military obligation to "fire first" since there was
no "firing second". It was not in America's best interests for the Soviets
to be constantly in a "shoot first" mode since "shoot first" just might
occur. Project TP started the ball rolling towards allowing the Russians to
develop a "shoot second" doctrine by allowing them to detect US missiles
being launched via an "early warning radar system".

Getting the Russians out of "shoot first" thinking was vital to US security.

* Lee's planning to defect can be traced to February, 1959 - the same month
the SS-6 became operational and the US became subjected to a "first strike"
mentality by the Soviets.

>
> Whereas space technology
> > doesn't fit Oswald. My ASSUMPTION at the time was that Lee was a "tack
on"
> > to the information exchange. That is to say that the US added the
Soviets
> > admitting Oswald to the USSR as part of the "space technology" exchange.
>
> Why not just send some guy from business school over (overtly) to study
> radio plant X or tractor plant Y ?
> Why send a slightly odd marine over, covertly ?
> ( Not to doubt that there could be reasons, just that I don't know)

The possibility exists that Oswald represented someone the Russians believed
had "hands on experience" of actually operating the system. So, therefore,
he had the "appearance" of value. In reality, Oswald's radar background was
with, I believe, the M16 radar, a completely different system. Yet he
offered the Soviets "radar information" at the same time as the US was
offering TP technology. Do you, as the Russians, turn him down or take him?

However, in my research, I do not have Lee transporting information to the
Soviets. I believe he was an "add on" to an information exchange. Part of
the "kitchen debate" covers this. Nixon was requesting to be able to
understand the Soviet system better which Krushev seemed willing to discuss.
This is where the US would "send someone over" to view, first hand, Soviet
social and economic development. This person would be traveling over to "see
what it's like in the Soviet Union", a description Lee often used of
himself.

Of course, on the Soviet side, the American sent would be considered a spy.
There would be opposition within the Supreme Soviet to admit any American
observor into the USSR. The easiest way to get Lee into the USSR, even with
Kruschev's approval, was as a defector. The Supreme Soviet would be much
more likely to accept an American defector than a personal emmissory of
Richard Nixon's requesting to "have a look around".

Obviously, Kruschev would reserve the right to accept or reject the American
observor sent. They're going to give final approval of who gets in to "have
a look around." This requires that the US send more than one
defector/observor to Moscow in order to give the Russians their choice. This
means the US had to create a "false defector program". The State Department
even sent a letter to the CIA, asking for a list of who were real defectors
versus "false defectors" (And Lee was on the list).

A false "defector" is easily spotted. A "false defector" will leave his
American passport at the USEMB. JKO and I have both alluded to this and JKO
has used this to spot other "false defectors". There is simply no getting
around this identication method. It is a required step of US national
security. If they wanted, the Russians would know when one of the US
"observors" had arrived in Moscow because he would be without his passport -
Although the Russiansd actually seem to have missed this. The Soviet
screening process would now begin to determine if the candidate was a
"military spy" or the promised "social observor".

LHO fits all the expected parameters of a "social observor". He was as
convincing to the Russians in 1959 as he is to you today. Lee can volunteer
to go on the mission for the US because he's genuinely interested in life in
the USSR and be accepted by Kruschev for the same reason. He can "honestly"
tell them he's a Marxist (No US trained defector would ever tell the Soviets
that) and, when he returns to the US, he can honestly tell anyone who asks
him why he went to the USSR that it was because he wanted to see what it was
like there.

Although Lee was a volunteer social observor according to my research, he
still obtained "training".


>
> > IMO, the CIA was seeking "economic" information on the USSR which U-2's
> were
> > not providing, specifically the costs of goods and services and the
> > organization of production (The "Kollective").
>
> But your business school guy can do this in a much more organised fashion,
> no ?

The "defector" must pass Soviet admission standards and not yours. While we
may have wanted to send "business school guys" over, the requirement on the
other side was "send us a hillbilly". After all, a "business school guy"
would make a better spy than a "hillbilly" and the Soviets don't want to
admit a spy. As an 8th grade dropout, Lee is a "hillbilly" and, therefore,
more likely to be accepted. Even so, he was still monitored by the KGB to
see if he was a spy.


> Esp since the sovs are in on the deal, why so furtive about it ?

Kruschev would have been subjected to intense criticism if he stood before
the Supreme Soviet and announced that he had made a deal, in furthering the
understanding of their two cultures, of admitting an American observor into
the USSR to "have a look around". He would be accused of having been duped
into allowing an American spy into the USSR.

So, instead, Krushev's most trusted ally stood before the Supreme Soviet and
told them an American defector had arrived from the US requesting
citizenship (JKO's "she"). Kruschev's and Nixon's deal to "exchange ideas"
is not even mentioned and no criticism is directed at Kruschev. Instead, the
Supreme Soviet's focus is simply on whether to admit Lee or not. If they
suspect he is a spy, he goes back to the US. After all, Kruschev doesn't
want a spy either. But, if he's not judged to be a spy, then "special
effort" will be applied to get Lee admitted.

Lee, while not judged to be a spy, was still turned down (Probably because
he was of "no value".). This led to his "suicide attempt" - which he
probably performed on the advice of a Russian "inside Krushev's loop" (Leo
Setyaev). Although it should have earned Lee a trip in a straight jacket to
the nearest border, Lee was now claimed to have "propaganda value" by
Kruschev's inner circle in that here was an American who would rather "die
than return to the US". I believe the Supreme Soviet asked Lee if he would
be willing to make such a statement on Radio Moscow in exchange for his
admission and he agreed.

The rest is history.


> Why is the whole 'defecting marine' yarn considered neccessary ? It's a
> cover story, but since both sides know all about it, what's the point ?
What
> am I missing ?

At what point can it be revealed? At the time Kennedy was assassinated,
Kruschev was still the Soviet premier. There was no time period between when
Lee returned to the US and when JFK was killed that this could be admitted
without having Krushev denounced by his fellow Communist Party leaders for
having made the deal with Nixon. Thus, for as long as Kruschev was alive,
nothing could be said to exxonerate Lee as an anti-American "defector"
(Kruschev died in 1971).
Yet the moment JFK was killed, again we could not ever reveal that Oswald
worked for "our side" in 1959-62. Otherwise, that raised the question of
whether or not he still worked for "our side" on Nov 22, 1963.


>
> Lee was to provide this
> > information. He was a "spy" but not in the ordinary sense. He was not
> > collecting secrets as much as he was collecting prices and production.
>
> Again, why not Algernon Q Accountant from the Harvard Business School ?
> Why Lee, of all people ?
>

If you were Kruschev, and you had made a deal to let an observor into the
USSR and you want to limit the chance of a spy, what type of person would
you tell Nixon to send, Algernon Q Accountant from the Harvard Business
School, or Lee Harvey Oswald?


>
> > The evidence is quite clear that the Soviets understood Lee's mission
and
> > did their best to subvert it by presenting a "false economy" to Oswald.
>
> So the US sends a non specialist over to (covertly) report on soviet
> production and the sovs do their best to hoodwink him.
> Seems like a pointless exercise, on the face of it ?
> ( Again, this is not exactly my sphere, so I am prepared to be hit with
> rotten eggs any second..)


There are no rotten eggs to throw. Ultimately, it did become a pointless
exercise. Not because Lee didn't do a good job but, because in 1962 when he
returned the information was no longer wanted. It was under Eisenhower that
Oswald left to get the true facts but it was under JFK that Oswald returned.
What Lee had to say, no one in the Kennedy Administration wanted to hear.

Here's what happened while Lee was gone. "During the 1960 campaign,
Republican Richard Nixon's Democratic challengers - Sens. Stuart Symington
of Missouri, Lyndon Johnson of Texas and John Kennedy of Massachusetts - all
campaigned on the so-called missile gap, the Soviet Union's perceived
superiority in nuclear weaponry.

Bombastic Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had capitalized on the shock
value of Sputnik in 1957 by boasting that the U.S.S.R. was building missiles
"like sausages." By harping on that "missile gap," Kennedy convinced many
Americans that it was true: In 1960, 47% of Americans believed the Russians
were ahead of the U.S. in missile and rocket production. The problem,
historian Martin Walker says, was that "there was no missile gap, and
Kennedy knew it."

Photographs taken by the CIA's super spy plane, the U-2, suggested that if
there was such a gap, it favored the West. But President Eisenhower and Vice
President Nixon could not challenge Kennedy's claims without acknowledging
the existence of the U-2 and missions over Soviet territory."

Thus, Lee's information would have amounted to proving JFK wrong.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-27-burkee_x.htm

But, in 1959, there were, indeed, "gaps" in the CIA's knowledge of the USSR
that U-2 imagery wasn't providing which an "observor on the ground" could.
Eisenhower was aware of this - or at least he was aware that wild claims
were being made about the Soviet economy - claims JFK picked up on. So, in
1959, getting an observor into the USSR seemed like a good idea at the time.
No one could possibly know then differently. Remember, you have the
advantage of looking at this with perfect hindsight.

In February, 1959, the US was facing a "first strike" policy from the USSR.
The CIA also had an economic intelligence gathering problem.
These problems were both addressed.

For a 1957 assessment of the Soviet economy ( "The Gaither Report") you can
go here:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9Hncx0pKGwoJ:www.dss.mil/seclib/govsec/appa9.htm+CIA+economic+assessments+USSR&hl=en

It describes the nature of the economic threat and the need to monitor
Soviet economic growth. It also mentions Soviet ICBM development (The SS-6)
and our early warning system (Project TP), stating, " By 1959, the USSR may
be able to launch an attack with ICBMs carrying megaton warheads, against
which SAC will be almost completely vulnerable under present programs. By
1961-1962, at our present pace, or considerably earlier if we accelerate,
the United States could have a reliable early-warning capability against a
missile attack, and SAC forces should be on a 7 to 22 minute operational
"alert." The next two years seem to us critical. If we fail to act at once,
the risk, in our opinion, will be unacceptable."

The next two years was 1958-59.

Of the roughly 100 persons associated with the Gaither Report there were
few economists. None of the principals had any particular knowledge of the
Soviet system, certainly not enough to add "investment in heavy industry" to
outlays in the report on the armed forces to produce an index of Soviet
geopolitical strength defined as nuclear strike power. These passages from
the Report are a close brush with the demented. What is merely painful is
for all those physicists to measure the overall strength of an economy in
terms of coal and steel production thirteen years after one of the first
computers, the Mark 1 built by Howard Aiken, began operating at Harvard.
Someone had to get in there and actually measure the price of bread.

Great efforts were made within the Federal Government to get a grasp on the
size and direction of the Soviet economy.

>
>
> They
> > put him up in his own river view apartment and they overpaid him for his
> > work. They KNEW he was going "back" and they sought to control the
> > information he took back with him by overstating their economy.
>
> Why would the US put any great faith in the reporting of LHO ?
> What economic expertise did he have ?

Read for yourself:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm


> It's like sending in me to do some dentristry. Wrong guy to call, if you
> want your teeth fixed, imho.
>

The proof is in the pudding.
He successfully got in.
He successfully observed.
He successfully got out.
He successfully reported his findings.

Now how is he the "wrong guy"?

Name someone who did better?

>
> When Lee
> > went back, it was their intention that he carry an exaggerated report of
> the
> > Soviet economy with him.
> > You can read Lee's report on the Soviet economy and production on John's
> > site as "The Kollective".
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm
>
> Sure.
> But you are not going to tell me that the US were going to rely on this as
> some kind of guide to the soviet economic system in practice?

He provides a labor report on a specific factory in Minsk. He provides when
the factory was built, the number of people employed, both full time and
part time (including the percentage of women) and the total production
(which provides the output per man in a modern plant). He provides the size
of the plant (25 acres) and how to locate it for U-2/satellite imagery, the
number of shifts, the production plant description, building by building,
even the cutting rates of the steel saws, etc. The man even recorded " 47
women and three physically disabled persons" operated the plastics
department. This is a very precise count on his part. He also includes their
vacation time. He discusses the availability of automation for the war
industry. He cites the ratio of foremen to workers. He cites worker
production quotas and pay scales, and payroll withholdings. His labor report
includes the political organization of the Kollective. In fact, I'll bet you
never finished reading it because of all that boring PRODUCTION information.
In addition to monitoring production, he states he is "observing Russian
life and conventions", which I believe is the very description Nixon gave
Kruschev when he wanted to get an observor inside the USSR.
He points out that two years of factory employment is required before
attending a university. He gives housing rents, number of apartments built,
how voting is held, and clearly conducted private interviews with workers to
learn more about them and their STANDARD OF LIVING. He provides the price of
bread, restaraunt prices, cars, motorcycles, TV sets (including by screen
size), suits, the waiting lists for refrigerators, cars, and vacuum
cleaners.
He discusses Soviet travel restrictions, passports, collective farms, and
state farms. I won't bore you any further but I have only covered a fraction
of what he described - And he did his best not to rely on the Soviet gov't
for his info but from personal interviews and observations. He had either
been advised or figured out on his own how to collect information - even
with the Soviets trying to provide him with a false picture of their
economy.




> Maybe as general background ( life on the mean streets of Minsk..) but
> surely nothing more than that ?
>

>From what Lee provided I can calculate what a Soviet worker gets paid and
convert that to an hourly wage, what his net check is, what his rent is,
what his clothing costs are, and his food costs, to determine his
"disposable income" for such items as refrigerators, cars, motorcycles,
TV's, and vacuum cleaners. Everything I do I can calculate back to the price
of bread, a universal economic measurement for the value of a dollar, pound,
or ruble. I can then compare that to an American laborer for the same period
and draw a comparison of economic standards of living. You can do the same
in the UK.


>
>
> >
> > The significance to JKO's and my exchange isn't to address what happened
> on
> > 11/22/63 as much as it is to state that the presented history of Oswald
is
> > incorrect. Had Oswald actually been what the Posnerites claim he was, he
> > would have been in prison on 11/22/63 breaking rocks with a lead ball
> > chained to his leg. You simply can't get around this
> >
> > Compare the history of defector Bruce Frederick Davis to Oswald's:
> >
> > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/defector.htm#DAVIS
> >
> > Like Lee, Davis was US military who never renounced his US citizenship
> and,
> > like Lee, he was critical of US foreign policy. Like Lee, he also
> requested
> > the return of his American passport. And, like Lee, after requesting the
> > return of his passport, he met a Rusian girlfriend. Finally, like Lee,
he
> > made an unauthorized visit to the USEMB to return to the US.
> >
> > What was waiting for him when he got home?
> >
> > A 10 year prison sentence at hard labor.
>
> OK, I'd find it much easier to agree that Lee was handled strangely than I
> would to agree that he was employed as some kind of economic info-bot.
> The only role I can see Lee being chosen for is one where his peculiar
> psychology , far out views,

These are what got him admitted.

> and his economic insights are irrelevant.

These are what allowed him to be selected for the mission.

>
> >
> > Yet whern Lee returned to the US, nothing happened. Where was his 10
year
> > sentence?
> >
> > It fell through the cracks.
> >
> > There is probably no person in the history of America with more
government
> > filing "mistakes" than Oswald. They range from his military files to
his
> > passport files. But, if one looks closely, the "mistakes" are not
mistakes
> > at all. They serve a single purpose - to keep Lee from breaking rocks
with
> a
> > lead ball chained to his leg like Bruce Frederick Davis.
>
> Very possible. But that's distinct from the question WHAT was he doing
over
> there ?
> Not sure I'm entirely convinced yet, by this economic intelligence
gathering
> hypothesis.
>

Admit it.
You didn't read The Kollective link I posted, did you?

>
> > This "favoritism" has lead to all kinds of wild CT theories - from where
> > he's an FBI informant to a CIA agent. But, in reality, he never worked
for
> > either of those two agencies (Although they were very much aware of
him.).
> > JKO and I have both figured out who Lee was working for in 1963
> (Argueably,
> > from JKO's perspective, the same people he was working for in 1956.).
> >
> > If you have questions, ASK.
>
> Who was Lee working for in 1963 ?? :-)
>

You're jumping ahead. JKO and I are still on 1959. Taking things out of
sequence allows important information to be overlooked. It also allows
others to try and change the subject and then, once the subject is changed,
to argue we didn't present enough information to make our case.

> >
> > This opportunity is not likely to come along again.
>
> O boy !!! John (Watters ) !!! Help me out here !!!
>

I'm sure he's reading.


::Clark::


> paul s
>
> >
> >
> > ::Clark::
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Approved: jmcadams@shell.core.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Paul: here is a outline (longer then what you might want) of the
relationship
> between Clark and myself on Oswald.
>
> I will give you my side or view......Clark can provide his or his overall
opinion.
>
>
> In a sense Clark and I have "done battle" against each of our opinions in
a very
> open way.....on the newsgroup. Agreeing to disagree on anything just to
keep
> the avenue of discussion open. We have very rarely exchanged email on the
> topic being discussed or other aspects of the case.

James and I usually start an exchange on a point of agreement and then end
it on a point of disagreement. We almost always agree on "effect and intent"
behind actions relating to LHO but, eventually, not the why motivating the
action in the first place. JKO operates from a wider information base than I
do.

Neither one of us has any problem being proven wrong by the other. That is
actually helpful. It allows us to narrow down the possibilities even
further - And there are not many left. So few, that JKO and I differ only
over the details. But there are a lot of details.


>
> Around 1994, I left teaching in the USAR to go to a BN, that was very
close to
> my home. I had been traveling over 250 miles a weekend to teach. My
former
> Section Chief (during DS) was the senior NCO of another unit but shared
our
> compound. He provided me with that "evidence". But that deals with RW
groups,
> and a early warning to JFK from Otte about Dallas.
>
>
> I'm putting out on the table some of the primary findings of my research,
some
> of which I have made seperate posts on in the past. Clark is expressing
either
> his support, his questions on my work or his version of his take on
things. In
> some cases his version of what I think or the direction in which my work
goes.

I try and identify those moments.

> But Clark does not have all the material that I have to support my
considerations.

And I try and identify that also.

>
> I base everything for the "Marxist Marine" (enlistment and defection) on
> the law and known actions against military service members associated with
> communism in any way. I've studied Military History since the 50's and
spent
> over 33 years of my life connected to the U.S. Army.
>
> That's the "background" on the exchanges and my basic opinion. I do not
> feel that Lee's defection was on "his own".

My finding also - And by independent means.

>I do not believe his military service
> was as presented.

The first inkling that something is wrong is when DOD withheld Lee's
military files from the WC - And then where Lee's records were actually at.
But I did not know what clues to look for.

This problem arose again for me with the Private Schrand (sp?) case. Then
with his two courtmartials - particularly the "Derringer".
I had a suspicion I couldn't prove.

>I can support my research from a point around July 1955
> to July 25th, 1963, dealing with Lee's military service and defection. Up
to
> July 25th, 1963 I strongly believe Lee is working with the USG at first,
in a minor
> role associated with intelligence gathering against "subversives".

Lee could be engaged in such activity in New York.
I found the clues but not the answers.

> After July
> 1963, the ball game changes.....

I find Lee suspects July 25, 1963 is coming - And the idea for the "new ball
game" occurs to him in June, 1963 (I believe June 14 if bad memory serves).
After July 25, 1963, the wheels of June turn in motion beginning in late
August, creating the "September conspiracy".


>but that leads into my script "The September
> Conspiracy". The early part of his "enlistment" put him in position to be
> selected for the 1959 "defection".

Yes. Something needs to cause Lee to stand out for consideration from all
the Marines, Air Force, and Army personell.
There was no sign posted on Lee's barrack's bulletin board requesting
volunteers for a "mission" inside the USSR. While he may have volunteered
for the mission, he can't volunteer for a mission he doesn't know about. It
hasn't been posted.

This means Lee is somehow already in a "pool" of candidates, and someone
involved with Nixon's "sharing of ideas" with Kruschev is going through the
files of the available "pool" and stopped on Oswald's.

This suggests that we try and identify what "pool" of files Lee's name was
in. It was JKO that made this identification - not me.

My assumption was that Lee's incoming mail and request to take a Ruussian
language course brought him to the attention of "higher ups".

>
> Lee's enlistment and seperation.....were "fraudulant" based on the
presented
> "offical" history. My work shows this, based on legal research, into
various
> laws concerning the military and national or internal security. It is not
"fraudulant"
> if part of a "operation" in the interest of the USG.
>
> Key documents and records connected to Lee's military service, 5
intelligence
> reports and two Courts-Martial records, were "destroyed", my FOIA
requests
> to the USN/USMC verify that fact.

Can you tell us about the five intelligence reports?

>
> Since these key records, are not available, one must fill in the blanks
with "facts"
> in association of why Lee was not fully prosecuted under the law, if he
was acting
> alone, during this period.

This is my approach also and, given the same facts, JKO and I were often
getting the same conclusion.

>
> My basic view is that if Lee was acting alone.....as a true "Marxist
Marine" then
> he would have been arrested once he walked into the U.S. Embassy, and
> the "defection" started.

Or arrested when he returned - As happened with Bruce Frederick Davis.
Our boy is a prime candidate for "hard labor".

> The grounds for doing so and the laws in support
> were there......but Lee was allowed to walked out of a "closed" embassy.
> (it was only open half a day on Sat).
>

Nor were any instructions send by the Navy to the USEMB Naval attache' in
Moscow to arrest Oswald if he should return. Considering the Navy had been
informed of Lee's intent to deliver knowledge on US radar, this was an
extremely simple order to give.

So "stupidity" has set in on the side of the USG. We have a traitor in our
midst threatening to reveal US secrets. We don't know what he may have
learned to turn over. Snyder does not order his arrest. No orders to Snyder
are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald. No orders to the US Naval
attache' are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald.

Oswald is treated as if he never said anything about providing the USSR with
US radar information at all.

Since Lee would be returning, this required Lee to be of "low level" rank
and, therefore, of "no importance". If he was "of importance" then those out
of the loop will press for his prosecution. Further, if "of importance", he
might actually relay info "of importance".

So a private is sent.
But so was Bruce Frederick Davis - And he didn't get ignored.

> Now to this actual thread........on the "early out". To obtain a 90 day
early out,
> the law and the military require "verification" of the grounds for
seperation.
> That "evidence" is evaluated and the discharge is granted or denied. In
this
> case Lee acts early to start the process.....too early in my opinion and
in
> two seperate directions, Dependency and Hardship.....which can be
combined.
> The "evidence" of either should have been in place (in the hands of the
board)
> prior to the "First Endorsement" of the discharge. This was not the case.
> The board is proceeding without the required documentation. Some of which
> comes in well after the long process of "Endorsement" is underway. Some
> never reaches.....ie verification by the Red Cross, the hands of the
endorsers.
>

Bottom line, the USMC simply approved Lee's request without having the
supporting documents in the possession - and with the effect that Lee was
exited from the USMC at the earliest possible legal date.


> There are alot of little details, that support the above, when combined
show
> that Lee could not have seperated "early" on his own, through normal
channels.
> He had to be "assisted" in seperating "early".

Someone should have asked, "Where's the paperwork supporting this request?"

> This supports that Lee is not
> as he is presented......ie the "Marxist Marine" and his trip to the USSR
is
> supported by the USG.

Agreed. The USG sponsored his trip to the USSR, Marxist or not.

>
> This support includes, funds, and legal seperation from the military.
There
> are other considerations, but to put it bluntly......I don't think Lee was
actually
> "in" the USMC.....but had been recruited in 1955 for the National Security
> Training Corps, under the new Reserve Forces Act of 1955.

At the same year the National Security Training Corps was formed, the
National Security Council (NSC 5412/1 and NSC 5412/2) created the Special
Group Committee composed of the NSC, the CIA, State, and the President - in
order for them to all regularly meet and address joint issues.

If one looks at the names "National Security Council" and "National Security
Training Corps", we wonder if there isn't a link between the Council and the
Corps?

In 1961, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Special Group could become the
"Special Group Augmented" or SGA by adding RFK to the room. Both the
"Special Group" and SGA have been connected to "assassination planning" -
usually involving Castro. The addition of RFK was to include him to protect
the
President from the Special Group getting caught at these things. Therefore,
by January, 1962, he was also on the Special Group's Counter Insurgency
Subcommittee, composed of General Taylor [Chairman], the Attorney General,
Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of Central Intelligence,
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
Administrator, Agency for International Development. This allowed Taylor to
bypass the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, and work directly
with their deputies to carry out counter insurgency programs approved by the
Special Group. RFK was present to police the programs to make sure any
possible failures did not trace back to JFK. The nature of this Group's work
was such that neither the Secreatary of State nor the Secretary of Defense
wished to be involved or connected either.

By April, 1962 there is no record of any more Special Group meetings - only
Special Group Augmented, meaning RFK had become permanently attached to all
Special Group meetings. Thus, RFK was on hand to police any "anti-Castro
plots" devised by the SGA and, further, he sat on the Counter Insurgency
Subcommittee which would have carried them out (This Group was involved with
illegal activities - but not assassination - Or else John McCone would not
have been a member).


Lee returned to the US in 1962 with RFK policing JFK's
"assassination/counter insurgency" programs with the idea that JFK not get
caught by any exposure of these Group's illegal activities. What RFK needed
was "plausible denial".


> The USMCR
> was used, to "train Lee" and take advantage of various actions that are a
> known part of his "service".

Lee's enlistment papers show him enlisting in the USMCR and not the USMC
(James discovered this - not me). This is a major "tilt" in the enlistment
process.

The USMCR is the Reserves.
Lee must either be "recalled to Active Duty" to serve at Atsugi or he is
performing "Reserve training."


> Under the RFA of 55, all branches of the service
> were used to "train" individuals that would be in the military but not
part of
> the actual military they were being trained by....the USMC was the last
branch
> to go along with this training program. This training satisfied, service
obligation,
> without losing control over the individual, if he is working in areas of
National
> or Internal Security.

Lee is "Active" - either "Active Reserve" or "Active Duty". According to his
enlistment papers, he is "Active Reserve."


On leaving the USMC and satisfying USMCR time, he should be released as
"Inactive" - which he was on September 12.

But on September 11, he was released as "Active" - meaning control over the
individual has not been lost.

I "think" that JKO believes that Lt. Ayers corrected the "mistake" of
9/11/59 on 9/12/59. If so, I disagree.

>
> I wanted this thread to focus only on the aspects of the seperation.
Clark wants
> to expand it into areas of "the defection"........but I feel that confuses
some,
> as you indicate by this request.

I also want to stay on the aspects of separation. I simply brought up how
his separation effected his "defection". Was he "Active" or "Inactive" in
the USSR? According to Lee, he's "Active". According to the USMC, he's
"InActive".

There is a "control" issue here.

>
> To address some of the considerations mentioned by Clark. There has to be
> a "project" that fits into the ongoing "history" of the time. It has to
be associated
> with the Navy, requires information to be passed off to the Soviets and of
prime
> consideration, it has to fit Oswald and his known actions. It is the
reason for the
> "early out". There are about 15 such projects, relating to National
Security
> intelligence operations going on in 1959. In my opinion Project TP is the
best
> one to consider and I use that as the foundation of Lee's "defection".

Gee! And I only found one.

>
> The problem is that "ALL OF" the offical reports and investigations of
Lee's
> defection are not "included" in the WCR and Exhibits.

Particularly his military records.

> The prime example of
> this is the investigation to "prosecute" Lee for various violations of the
law,
> known to have occurred. This would be what I call the "AG's report" by
direction
> of RFK.

And undoubtedly performed by Nicholas Katzenbach if I am allowed to make an
"educated guess".


> There were a dozen other intelligence agencies looking into this
> "defection".....those reports are also "incomplete"......the prime example
is
> the conflicts surrounding the CIA's handling of the case, which is why so
many
> believe Lee was working for the CIA from 1959 on. They are wrong in
belief
> that Lee was in the CIA.

Agreed also.
Technically, Lee comes under DOD, but, more realistically, he comes under
another "group" altogether.


>
> All of my research can be supported, either by the law or known cases
against
> "subversives" "spies" and "defectors". There is alot of details that have
to be
> considered from approximately Feb-59 to Feb 1960, just concerning the
> seperation of Oswald from the USMC......which have never surfaced in the
> past. These actions......having NOTHING to do with the assassination,
except
> as "background" that puts him on the path to Dallas.

And I don't want to skip it.

>
> Now, for the kicker.......I can use the material, to show that Lee was
part of
> the outline above.....or I can show Lee acting on his own, using the same
> material. But it requires a "higher" opinion of Lee than most will ever
accept.

Lee would pretty much have to be a god to perform this alone.

>
> I have no problem with my research being "countered" with facts and legal
> considerations, I do all my research equally to show "both sides".
>
> I hope this helps.......and if you want me to show you where the material
> supports Lee is acting on his own, I can point you in those directions.
> I lean towards Lee working in association, because my opinion of Lee is
> not as high (although higher then most) as required......I still believe
Lee
> needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.

I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed my
arguments on this.


>
> I no longer care if "Thpa2d" is ever produced.....so I might as well share
> these opinions with those interested.

Yes. Although maybe we can make Jeff Morely famous?


::Clark::

[..]




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Approved: jmcadams@shell.core.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:41718f08@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Not too many snip here.........
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n1huds6t29n0e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41700c65@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >
> > > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mu1bna19lj279@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in
> > > > >
>
> > > >
> > > > Which brings me back to J.W. Poindexter's rank. A Lt. Colonel in
1951
> > > > could be out of the colonel business by 1959.
> > >
> > > A buck private could have handled this........rank is not the issue or
> > concern.
> > > It's actually better to have lower ranking individuals handling this.
> > Easier for PD.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I was thinking that if our Lt. Colonel was now a "Brigadier General" (A
not
> > impossible 8 year step in rank) that his approval might cause those
below to
> > follow suit with theirs.
>
> To make things work......without question.....it's always best to use
> routine proceedures without imput from higher up. That's why I think you
> have the wrong Poindexter in mind.
>

I did have the wrong "Poindexter". However, I can't see how "routine
procedures without input" can be used to explain Lee's discharge. A review
board without input from higher up should note their information is
incomplete and agree to convene again when it is. Somebody had to notice the
"Pic" letter.

If "input from above" is not required, that's the same as saying that all
hardship and dependency discharges are automatically approved on
questionable or incomplete paperwork as SOP unless contrary input is
received from above.


> > > >
> > > > Which brings you to the Red Cross?
> > >
> > > Yes, there is one letter by Dr. Howard, dated Sept 3rd, that is
DIRECTED
> > TO
> > > THE RED CROSS. I also believe Lee was pissed at his mother for doing
> > things
> > > without going through the RC.......I believe there are letters on
> > this....but I don't
> > > have them handy right now.....Lee's pay records would have been closed
out
> > on
> > > 11 Sept. 1959. That would mean that the approval would have been
closed
> > out
> > > at the same time as not being needed.
> > >
> >
> > A facinating line of thought. I only remember his Red Cross payment in
terms
> > of rubles. How close did it come to $ 90?
>
> Very close......depending on the rate of exchange.....700 rubles would
> equal just about the same.........plus or minus a few buck and change.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > If so, brilliant thinking.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One has to first understand the basics.....which have never been
presented
> > properly.
> > > I first questioned the absences of the confirmation required by the
Red
> > Cross within
> > > the offical records. It was at first a seperate consideration only in
the
> > fact that not
> > > all the "required" documents were in the files presented......but
nobody
> > would even
> > > look, without considerinig all the factors of known history, on going
at
> > the time. It
> > > was later that I associated that amount of money that Lee was given in
the
> > USSR.
> >
> > I'm still really impressed - right or wrong - that you had this thought.
> > It makes perfect sense.
> >
> > But I'm a "CTer" so that agreement is to be expected.
>
> It's one of those things to consider....but not critical. We know Lee got
> funding........as did some of the other defectors.......so it's just a
> consideration.
>
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but it means moving on from the discharge.........
> > >
> >
> > Would you care to get more specific on your July 25, 1963 date and the
logic
> > behind it?
> > That has never entered into my research.
> >
>
> It's actually too much to go into....but that's the date his downgraded
> discharge became final

Yes, By ruling. My goof. I thought you were referring to a standard Reserve
expiration date.

For lurkers, the USMC incorrectly downgraded Lee's discharge which he
protested upon his return to the US. A review board heard his case and gave
its ruling on July 25,1963 confirming the undesireable discharge.

Lee was given an undesireable discharge for alledgedly revoking his American
citzenship. Since Lee still had his American citizenship, obviously, the
USMC had changed his discharge on false grounds. Technically, this is an
open and shut case. Lee need only show he was an American citizen to prove
the downgrade was wrong.

I have not studied this but it would be interesting to see how the Review
Board justified its decision. Let's get back to this sometime.


......and the point that Lee could now be acting on
> his own, in the direction of killing JFK, outside of anything that he
> might have been connected to in the past. Perhaps in another thread, once
> this one is done.

For lurkers, the LNers can argue that Oswald, being denied an honorary
discharge, went gunning for JFK. I am prepared to argue against that.


>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Lee was not qualified to be part of the primary considerations of
the
> > > > exchange
> > > > > but was on a very low level.....as a "operator".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of the system being turned over?
> > >
> > > Yes, the system.........or it's adaption.......I believe that they
needed
> > somebody
> > > that would be able to work the system from both sides......which maybe
the
> > > reason Lee was later asked to stay and things had to be worked out for
him
> > > to stay and work where the Soviet versions would be made....in Minsk.
> > It's
> > > also my opinion that Lee was actually useless in this.....but that's
> > another issue
> > > on his training.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. He probably was useless in this but you'd have to be an idiot on
the
> > Soviet side to accept the technology while refusing what appears to be
the
> > operator.
> >
>
> There are other considerations, based on the actions of other "defectors"
> that also come into play.......but one has to actually go back and
> consider Lee's actual "duty" while in the USMC and how much exposure to
> the equipment actuall used as well as training on new equipment. The
> orginal system could have been "adapted" in various areas that are outside
> of Lee's "training" while he was in the USSR.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The person crossing the border had to be one that the KGB would
> > approve
> > > > of.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. But I don't think KGB approval of Oswald was in place in
> > September
> > > > - which may explain the "slow boat".
> > >
> > > They are in my opinion the ones that insisted that the individual be a
> > "nobody"
> > > in the first place. So they would not have to spend a great deal of
time
> > or effort
> > > in "watching him" which is exactly what happened. Low ranking KGB
> > operatives
> > > and very low priority concerning his activities. My account has to
take
> > everything
> > > into consideration in support of the desires of both the USSR and the
USA.
> > >
> >
> > You have given this area more thought than I have.
> > I had it narrowed down to "The Soviets were expecting him", identified
Leo
> > Setyaev as a participant, and left it at that.
> >
>
> The KGB play a major role here.....and, most of the material that they
> have "shared" is still yet to be fully examined in detail. There is more
> "one sided" views, then those based on all the considerations.
>
> > >
> > > > > > > Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of
Oct
> > 31.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll drag mine out and post them.
> > > > > > They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read
them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Oct 31 letter is the first........Snyder gives the message
with
> > "the
> > > > wrong address",
> > > > > which confirms Lee is who he is and all is well. The address in
the
> > > > letter is not
> > > > > Lee's last known address....it is the address he lived at when he
join
> > the
> > > > USMCR.
> >
> > I cruised right past this the first time.
> > But that would be one way of confirming Lee is "who he is" but, in
another
> > post, you have Snyder an innocent pigeon. How do you reconcile this
> > observation with your lack of suspicion towards Snyder? Or is the
address
> > given not for Snyder but for those who receive Snyder's message?
> >
>
> First consideration is that it is not for Snyder.....I don't believe that
> it was for Snyder. It's not that I lack "suspicion towards Snyder", I do,
> just don't think he is fully responsible or part of the "plan".
>

W/o Snyder - how do you get Lee back from the USSR?

>
> > >
> > > they are important but too much outside of the "early out" that still
has
> > to be
> > > ended.
> >
> >
> > Lead and I shall follow.
>
> The discharge early out is just about over or it can be ended.
>

I'll post Greg's ASC work.
Anything you want to add to the discharge discussion?

If not, shall we progress through September-October, 1959?
We can start another thread.

Or shall we go back in time and discuss his USMC admission/recruitment?

Or Schrand? Or his SCM's?

Your call. I'm sketchy on both.


> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > How do we rule that out that he 1) Didn't go see the base legal
attorney
> > > > for his help 2) Didn't research the codes himself?
> > >
> > > We can't rule these considerations out.......they follow the
> > >
> > > 1. Seperation on his own
> > >
> > >
> > > > Not that I'm arguing. My proof that Lee couldn't act alone is while
he's
> > > > in the USSR - not in his method of obtaining his discharge.
> > >
> > > You need the discharge, the entry, the stay and the return as well to
put
> > everything
> > > in proper perspective.
> > >
> >
> > For lurkers, JKO is telling us that, as we see more of the picture, at
some
> > point Lee can no longer be believed as acting "alone".
> > We are discussing his discharge and "defection" and not the JFK
> > assassination.
> >
>
> Too much of known history is ignored, because it can and does raise
> "Reasonable Doubt" about the offical version.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Again, let's assume Morely is reading this (I sent him an e mail on
this
> > > > but he's slow on opening and reading them.).
> > > >
> > >
> > > He has CIA material coming in Dec......so chances are he has a full
plate.
> >
> > He has replied to me already twice.
> > Evidently, you're on his e mail list too?
> >
> > If so, that's good. He'll be able to pick his own path as we lay out the
> > minefield.
> >
>
> Yes, I'm on his list for some things.....but we don't exchange alot, my
> Cuba work is far more in line with what he is now involved in then this
> stuff. I think we should both "go to Cuba" to get files from Castro, that
> directly relate to his interest and mine. I now have the funds for my
> team, for a trip after the first of the year....if he's interested.....I'm
> sure he can get support.
>
> Jeff, if you are reading or trying to follow this....consider Cuba......as
> a first priority to me.

Beautiful city.
Try and hit the "dry season". When it rains, it pours.
Also, if you get the chance, tour Santiago. As a military historian you
might find it interesting. For the wife, who's probably not interested in
things military, take her to see the Bellamar Sea Caves.
Oh! And let the Cubans know, in advance, what information you'd like to see.
Don't book w/o an answer.


::Clark::

>
> jko




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 14:16:36 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416feb7d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark:
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
> > > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be
"the
> > > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for
who
> > > > Oswald was?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The
point
> > > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the
USMC.
> >
> > Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers and he
> > would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I suppose
> > if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.
>
> Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years",

Then Ayer's gave a false statement in order to get Lee his passport.


>however a statement from the USMC
> would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged for
by
> the USMC would give indication of knowledge,

of where he was headed?

BTW, speaking of where he was headed on his passport, do you consider that
Lee's early preparation could have also included Cuba as a destination? If
so, does this get included in your Cuban trip plans?


>so the normal channels of obtaining
> a passport was used, however, its a simple matter to discover, if one
looks. Almanacs,
> which I collect, all have a section on passports and how to obtain them.
>
>
> >
> > > But there's more to consider. The USMC could have issued Lee a "no
fee"
> > > passport, but no application was made to do so. The reason can only
be to
> > > keep Lee's travel plans "on his own" without assistance. To indicate
that the
> > > USMC had no idea he was planning to go to the USSR.
> >
> > Agreed - And changing his discharge from "Active reserve" to "Inactive
> > Reserve" was just one more step in that process.
>
> There's more conflict with the handling of the records, but no need to go
into
> great detail.
>
> >
> > > At the time, there
> > > was no fear of disclosure, because nobody would find out and if they
> > > did......so what, many individuals get passports while in the service.
It was the
> > > conflict of a witness and the available "no fee" passport that showed
me that
> > > the USMC was "aware of Lee's plans" that matters. Not all of the USMC
had
> > to know......but the
> > > "wittness" did. Since this wittness would be the "final endorsement"
> > > of the discharge, it means he supported the plan and was in the loop.
> > >
> >
> > He's in the loop two different ways - by acting as Oswald's "personal"
> > witness and by altering Lee's discharge from "Active" to "Inactive".
> >
>
> Ayers, was the personnel officer, that "reviewed" and finalized on Service
Records
> at the base for Lees assigned unit. This is where the ONI stuck many
officers.
> IT IS NOT CONFIRMED, but I believe Ayers left this job shortly after and
went to
> a intelligence unit.....I can't even remember where exactly I learned
this, but it
> was either Epstein, Weisberg or Weberman.
> >
> > >
>
> > > Clark: IMHO there was no "discharge" Lee was still on Active Duty and
> > would
> > > be until at least July 25, 1962.........with a possible one year
extension
> > to
> > > July 25, 1963.
> > > I'm sure you will remember the various areas I've mentioned 25 July,
1963,
> > > especially in relationship to the USMC........he's discharged.
> >
> > You did mention it regarding Oswald in NO.
>
> July 25, 1963 is when his USMC connection is ended......the last date of
> appeal on his discharge.
>
> >
> > My own work agrees that Oswald's USMC status is "Active" while in the
> > USSR. I arrived at this conclusion by his own actions. He keeps trying
to
> > fit into the passport laws for "Active Reservists".
>
> There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports" and
> "Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and after.
BUT Lee
> is not following the law here, there are some things you are overlooking.
>

OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was not
in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second, what
are the things I am overlooking?


> >
> > For lurkers, "Active Reservists" in Oswald's day had to be available for
> > "recall" back to Active Duty in times of national emergency. If you were
> > overseas, you were beyond "recall". As my now questionable memory
serves,
> > Active Reservists applying for passports for extended stays outside the
US
> > was something of a no-no. The passport could be granted though for
> > extended overseas stays to an "Active reservist" if the purpose of the
> > trip was educational. For this reason, Oswald applied to attend the
Albert
> > Schweitzer College in order to get his passport approved.
> >
>
> Theres more.....but the general details are enough.
>
> > >
> > > Proving this or disproving it requires that Congressional
investigation. I do
> > > have several considerations of this "Active Duty" in support, but
being
> > > ON ACTIVE DUTY is not critical. There was a "Program" in effect under
> > > the law to send former military NCO's to various areas, so it's really
not key
> > > that he was on AD but it's the most logical consideration.
> >
> > According to Lee's behavior - he thinks so.
>
> He would know his status......
>
> >
> > > The program exsists
> > > so Lee could have been AD, Ready Reserve
> >
> > Lee believes he's one of the above two.
> >
> > >or out all together,
> >
> > Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay "legal"
> > all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
> >
>
> NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations. If
not
> it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the begining......

Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?
Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?



>that works
> as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own
reasons,
> while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't kill
his
> fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy.

Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.

> This is why WC supporters
> should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
> these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
> or being the actual assassin working on his own.

No takers yet.


>
> The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a threat
> or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
> ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
> any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to
accomplish
> this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a
consideration.
> However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the
defection
> period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being
screwed.
>


I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent him -
Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.

But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?


> > > all have to
> > > be examined equally, but they are not presented as being investigated.
They
> > > wanted to show Lee "discharged" as a "Marxist Marine".
> >
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > > The "Service Records" Clark........are the key. The records will have
him as
> > > a hardship discharge.....
> >
> > But he thinks he has a "dependency discharge". The change to "hardship"
> > was made after he left. I don't think anyone wants Lee to know he has a
> > hardship discharge.
> >
>
> Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a
dependent, it
> is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee needs to
> take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of her
bills.

Who is to suspect?

And, whoever this person(s) who suspects is, won't he conclude the same
thing under either discharge? That Lee abandoned his needy mother for the
USSR?


> Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about his
mother
> Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....

If everyone knows this and the USMC doesn't want to appear suspicious, why
not give him a dependency discharge?



>all those that provided "support" by
> affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and if
they read the
> newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem odd,
strange
> and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
> of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the "defection".

No. You can't.
She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
Big mistake.


> She
> provides the primary consideration, that either Lee is being "screwed" or
"used"
> and she is "abused" by the action. IF Lee was being "screwed" the USG
would
> have taken advantage of this effort on her part......to "prosecute"
Lee.....but if
> Lee was to be prosecuted so would she.......the catch 22 that finally shut
her up.
>

I'm not saying the USG wanted to screw Oswald - only that it maintained
plausible denial that Lee was under US control while in the USSR by
recording a "hardship" discharge.

It was Lee's mother that got him screwed by Hoover with the USMC.


> >
> > >.his actual status, imo is still on active duty. The records
> > > were sent through the Ready Reserve section.......imo in the wrong
Naval District.
> > > This prevents access or allows for delay. The whole process is to
keep Lee out
> > > of the system, but still in the system.......just smoke and mirrors.
> > >
> >
> > I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> > discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If Lee
> > ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> > discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11, 1959.
> >
>
> You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a new
> assignment.

I have him thinking about Patrice Lumumba University as if he is "Active".
You have him avoiding the Kollective's political brainwashing sessions as if
he is "Active"
Do these things mean nothing if he is "Active"?


> If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
> thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.
>

Does not a "hardship" discharge support an LN argument that he was "acting
on his own, outside of the system"?

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September,
> > 1959 in
> > > > > the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made....
> > > >
> > > > There are no "mistakes" made in Lee's reserve status.
> > >
> > > The mistakes allowed me to consider all the "alternate
considerations".
> > Things that
> > > don't fit are the "mistakes".
> > >
> >
> > See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have hidden
> > from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> > discharge.
>
> There is no need to hide anything from Lee......

If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?

Because, if the USMC doesn't want Lee telling others he has a "hardship"
discharge, the simplest way to accomplish this would be to tell Lee he has a
"dependency" discharge - As the records show he was shown on 9/11/59. He
will now tell Priscilla Johnson he has a "dependency" discharge - which he
did.

Lee will also believe he is "Active" and apply to Patrice Lumumba
University - just as he applied to ASC. He will also avoid politcal meetings
in the USSR.


>if you feel Lee is acting on his
> own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations mentioned.
You
> can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.

I have Lee believing he is "Active" and, there not acting on his own, but
subject to USG control.

For lurkers, on September 11, 1959, Lee was given an "Active" discharge,
meaning he was subject to recall to active duty. This places restrictions on
his living overseas. It required he go overseas for "educational purposes"
for him to legally obtain a passport. For this reason he applied to attend
Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College which accepted him. This got Lee to
Europe and then to Russia. But, once in Russia, without attending school, he
was guilty of violating the law against "Active" Reservists living overseas
(where they are beyond recall during times of national emergency). To
correct that, in applying for Soviet citizenship, Lee identified to
Priscilla Johnson that the Russians were to help him attend a "Soviet
education institute". This would make Lee's stay in the USSR legal (For
CTer's, Lee needed to make this request only if he was planning on coming
back.). He also told Priscilla he was an "Active" Reservist. Once he got
inside the USSR he applied to Patrice Lumumba University and was "very
disappointed" when he was turned down. Why? Because he was now in violation
of laws applicable to "Active" Reservists requiring he be living in the USSR
for educational purposes (Which he could legally do) and not for employment
purposes.
Did he know this?
He sure did. He even wrote it down. His answers to the following written
questions can be found in Warren Commission Exhibit 100 Volume 16 Pg
436-439:

Question 3: "Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the USSR?"

Answer: I did in that.

Lee admitted above that he broke the law, as an "Active" Reservist, by
residing in the USSR and taking work there.

He even added to his knowledge of the law:

Question 4. "Isn't all work in the USSR considered State work?"

Answer: Yes of course and in that respect I also broke US Law in accepting
work under a foreign state.

Lee is referring to Title 37, section 908, which makes it illegal for
members of a reserve component of the armed forces to take foreign civil
employment. Since the USSR was a communist state, all employment there could
be considered "civil".

So we see two things. First, we see that Lee left a "door open" for himself
to return to the US with a plan to legally stay in the USSR by attending
school there. Second, we see he is familar with the laws pertaining to
"Active" Reservists and that he had violated them.

The problem though is that Lee was not "Active". The day after he left the
USMC, on Sept 12, 1959, Lt. Ayers changed his discharge to "Inactive". He
was no longer subject to recall to active duty. The above passport laws no
longer applied to Oswald.

IMO, based upon Lee's actions concerning the "Active Reserve" laws, Lee was
unaware that, the day after he exited the USMC, his discharge status had
been changed by Ayers to "Inactive".

Lee was worried about nothing.

Why then did Lt. Ayers change his discharge status from "Active" to
"Inactive" without telling Lee?

Because if Lee ever revealed to the Russians that he was working for the
USMC under threat of recall to Active Duty and Summary Court Martial if he
didn't obey USMC orders, the USMC could plausibly deny the charge by
producing Lee's discharge records showing he was "Inactive" and, thus, could
not be recalled to Active Duty for Summary Court Martial and that,
therefore, Lee was lying.

Things are actually more complex than this. There are still ways for Lee to
be prosecuted. But Lee only needs to know one to be made to obey "orders"
and the evidence above shows that he did know one - if not two (Title 37,
section 908).

Finally, Lee knew he had violated US law and was subject to prosecution. Yet
he returned anyway and yet was not prosecuted. IMO, he returned, knowing he
broke the law for the same reason he was not prosecuted. He had obeyed
orders.

>
> >
> > He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding his
> > file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or "Ready
> > Reserve".
> >
> > Lee will never be the wiser.
> >
>
> Only if he is being "screwed". They could legally show him AWOL, or as a
deserter
> obtainiing a fraudulant seperation.

I mentioned above that there are other ways to prosecute Oswald. But is our
8th grade drop out an attorney?
On his list of questions he wrote and answered for himself of his legal
crimes, he never mentioned being guilty of the above. One could argue that
he doesn't mention them because he doesn't know they were illegal.

However, IMO, Lee is not concerned with how the USMC "could legally show him
AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a fraudulant seperation" because it's not
the USMC that he's worried about be being prosecuted by.

It's the AG's Office.

The AG's Office can prosecute him for violating Federal passport laws
regarding "Active" Reservists. However, the AG's Office cannot prosecute him
even if it "could legally show him AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a
fraudulant seperation." Heck! They can't even nail him for offering the
Soviets radar secrets. Those are not Federal offenses. Those are military
offenses. Different courts.

Lee's exiting of the USMC reveals aid by the USMC (via Lt. Ayers) and USMC
knowledge that Lee has applied for a passport to leave the country, using as
a passport witness the very people he has told he's not going to leave the
country, but care for his mother instead. At the time that Lt. Ayers
appeared as Lee's passport witness, Ayers knew Lee's discharge reasons were
fraudulent. So the USMC is in on it - And Ayers had to lie and say he knew
Lee for two years in order to be in on it. So he's a participant to two
frauds.
No. Lee is not worried about the USMC prosecuting him. Such a prosecution
would reveal Lt. Ayer's knowledge and participation.
As far as Lee is concerned, his prosecution problems aren't with the USMC
when he returns (And we know he's planning to return.). It's with the AG's
Office. He knows he's violated Federal passport laws (Although he tried not
to). Its why he demanded a guarantee of no prosecution to return.

But, in his original plan, this wouldn't happen. He attends school in the
USSR. He doesn't get a job. Now, when he returns, there's no prosecution by
either the AG's Office or the USMC. He's within the Federal law with the AG
and it was the USMC that helped him get to the USSR in the first place, so
they're not going to prosecute him for going (And they didn't).




> Using his mother, which brings her into the law
> as "aiding" this fraudulant seperation and subject to prosecution. If
Lee was
> "Active" he was wiser.
>

As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not fraudulent. Lt.
Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.

>
> > > >
> > > > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are
being
> > > > handled in accordance with that belief.
> > >
> > > No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.
> >
> > His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent with
> > "Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.
>
> Lee needs to continue the "cover" of educationial desires

For the AG's Office - Yes.
For anyone else? No.

>.....but he is no student.

In enrollment only.
He's not there to learn about "philosophy".

> It fits......but Lee does not act like any student, wishing to study the
"Collective"
> or even Marxism.
>

Lee acts like someone taking notes on what he sees and hears.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm

> >
> > > He has to
> > > be for the USG to actually act in his behalf as they did. If he was
not, none of
> > > the things done to get him and his family back would have been done.
He
> > > would have been prosecuted.
> >
> > Of course - but we're jumping ahead in our conclusons. We're still in
> > September-December, 1959.
> >
>
> I started this to show the conflicts of the discharge.....the return is
just as
> complex.
>

Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in with the
"discharge". I just did it above.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lee continues to act as if he is the Ready Reserve while in the
USSR,
> > > > seeking admittance to Patrice Lumumba University and avoiding the
worker's
> > > > meetings, and preparing a list of answers to possible questions on
his
> > > > return applicable to his imagined "Active Reserve" status.
> > >
> > > Lee's cover is that he is "seperated" (by hardship) and he maintains
that role.
> > > He needs that cover to be "accepted".
> > >
>
> The whole thing stinks.......the "Collective" takes care of those that
can't.....but
> Lee does the opposite, and those that learn of how he handled his mother
would
> NOT BE accepting Lee......which is why Lee has a small circle of
associates.
> Easier to control, what they learn.
>
> >
> > Yes and No. His cover is that he is separated by "dependency" - not
> > hardship. You can see it for yourself right here:
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0153b.htm
> >
> > This is Lee telling Pricilla Johnson he has a "dependency discharge".
This
> > is exactly the conditions he left the USMC on. The change by Ayers took
> > place the next day.
> >
> > Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no matter
> > how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in the
> > USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the latter
> > can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").
> >
> > Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it - requires
> > Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice Lumumba
> > University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
> > sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?
>
> No, Lee has no interest in learning and his role does not require him to
be
> but it is "better" if he does nothing.....which he did. The Soviets,
followed
> through because of the possibility of "exposure" to other students of Lee
> actual "beliefs" and political background. The failure to allow Lee to go
> to school illustrates additional restricted co-operation by the Soviets.
>

Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his request to
attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
Any ideas on why they did this?

> >
> > Lee is obeying the rules. Our boy is COMING BACK. Here you can see where
> > Lee was negotiating with the Russians as early as November 12, 1959 to
> > continue his education "at a Soviet Institute."
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
> >
> > Lee's plans to attend school at a Soviet institute is a legal
requirement
> > he must meet. If not, he could be considered to be in violation of USC
909
> > of Title 37 which reads:
> >
> > Title 37
> >
> > § 908. Employment of reserves and retired members by foreign governments
> >
> > (a) Congressional consent. Subject to subsection (b), Congress consents
> > to the following persons accepting civil employment (and compensation
for
> > that employment) for which the consent of Congress is required by the
last
> > paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution, related to
> > acceptance of emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government:
> > (1) Retired members of the uniformed services.
> > (2) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
> > (3) Members of the Commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health
> > Service.
> >
> > (b) Approval required. A person described in subsection (a) may accept
> > employment or compensation described in that subsection only if the
> > Secretary concerned and the Secretary of State approve the employment.
> >
> > If Lee ended up in "civil employment" in the USSR without the Secretary
of
> > State's permission, he will be in violation of the law. BTW, item #2
above
> > should read "Active Reserve component".
> >
>
> The above is a key consideration.........it also covers individuals in the
NSTC,
> National Security Training Corp of which I believe Lee is actual connected
to.

Yes. Your belief on that is quite facinating and not impossible. Is there
any additional info you would like to share on that?

> See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
> treason and aiding the enemy.
>

Different thread?

> >
> >
> > Lee's application for Soviet citizenship is a sham. He's planning to
come
> > back before he even gets there. You and I can, and will, demonstrate
this
> > to be a sham over and over and over again.
>
> There is more to support the "sham" then Lee acting on his own.
>

Yes. We're just touching the tip of the iceberg.
We could bore everyone here to death with the evidence support the sham to
the point that they would prefer to read Dave Reitzes on Judyth.

> >
> > Lee failed to mention in his interview
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
> >
> > that the US Embassy in Moscow, advised him on November 6 to come back
> > during normal business hours to sign the necessary forms to renounce his
> > citizenship (CE 919).
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0066a.htm
> >
> > Instead, Lee ignored this letter in his interview and told her about his
> > original visit, stating, as CE 910 confirms, that the US Embassy "would
> > not allow me to act without confirmation of my Soviet citizenship. I
> > relinguished my passport and they said they would not act unless my
Soviet
> > citizenship was confirmed."
> >
> > Almost a week had gone by since being invited back to sign the forms.
Yet
> > Lee didn't go back and failed to acknowledge the invitation. Here's the
> > explanation he gave to Priscilla Johnson for not going back:
> >
> > He was "bitter towards Richard Snyder, who, he charges, stalled him when
> > he asked to take the oath on Oct 31, only time Lee's been at the
Embassy.
> > As a result, Lee won't go back there."
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0154b.htm
> >
> > Lee has retained his US citizenship, believes he has an "Active" status
with
> > the USMC, and abides by the regulations for such "Active" status.
> >
> > Lee is planning to come home. Even Priscilla Johnson suspected this,
> > advising Richard Snyder that Lee had "left the door open" to return
(page
> > 289, Vol XX).
> >
> > She could only say this if she knew Lee had not renounced his Ameican
> > citizenship. Here, on Dec 5, 1963, she admits knowing just that:
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
> >
> >
>
> Lee never indended to re-nounce his citizenship or "defect" on his own.
>

That is correct.
Lee was a expert on how not to renounce one's citizenship.

>
> > >
> > > His cover is established and hidden.
> >
> > Even from himself. If Lee ever tried to testify otherwise, the USMC
could
> > state that Lee was lying, that he had never received a dependent's
> > discharge and that he was Inactive - not Active - when he went to the
> > USSR.
> >
> > Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.
>
> Lee knows he is expendable.....it's part of the risk accepted, before
enlistment.
>

Okay. I even made a case for Lee being "expendable" to our own AG's Office.
So, obviously, you're right.


>
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....
> >
> > Lee did not miss this.
>
> He can't which is why he is fully aware of his "status".
>

"Active"

> >
> > >however you did not miss
> > > the "PD".
> >
> > Lee did.
> >
>
> NO.....PD is a key factor....it works several ways.
>

Now you know I have ask now how "it works several ways"?


> >
> > >
> > > * UNITED STATES CODE
> > > o TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
> > > + PART III - EMPLOYEES
> > > + Subpart B - Employment and Retention
> > > + CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND
> > PLACEMENT
> > > + SUBCHAPTER III - DETAILS
> > >
> > > § 3341. Details; within Executive or military departments
> > >
> > > * (a) The head of an Executive department or military department
may
> > > detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department,
> > > except employees who are required by law to be exclusively
engaged on
> > > some specific work.
> > > * (b) Details under subsection (a) of this section may be made only
by
> > > written order of the head of the department, and may be for not
more
> > > than 120 days. These details may be renewed by written order of
the
> > > head of the department, in each particular case, for periods not
> > > exceeding 120 days.
> > >
> >
> > According to this, Lee's "detail" would expire in January, 1960. I
expect
> > this is why you believe Lee's mission was to end in December, 1960 but
> > that something changed?
> >
>
> JFK WAS ELECTED, Lee operation could be "canceled" at this time. JFK
> would take office in January, Nixon was out the door. All intelligence
operations
> now have "new directions" if JFK wanted to change things. The
Presidentail
> Detail, has a new President.


Point conceded.

>
>
> > IMO, nothing changed. Lee is under "orders" until January, 1960 - or
until
> > he gets his "resident visa". Once inside the USSR he is beyond "orders".
> > But, up until January 1960, he has his orders to obey. Lee must do as
he's
> > told through January. If he doesn't obey orders and abscounds with $
2500
> > of USG money, bad things will be waiting for him back in the US.
> > "Presidential detail" covers this period.
>
> Your overlooking several key facts......Look at the period and
correspondence
> by Lee during Jan/Feb......with the consideration that the operationial
plug would
> be pulled.

I'll do this.
Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he left
Moscow and "disappeared"?

>
> >
> > Once inside the USSR, his "presidential detail" commitment expires. But
we
> > no longer need it then. The USMC just needs to make him obey orders
until
> > he's inside - or until January, 1960. This corresponds to when Lee
> > received his temporary Russian visa.
> >
> > Thus, there is no required connection between the length of Oswald's
> > "detail" and the length of his mission.
> >
>
> The detail was allowed to continue, but with some changes. The agreement
between
> Ike and Niki, was different then the one between JFK and Niki. I made a
post several
> years ago about the 185 to 8 motive. This would also allow Lee to have
motive to
> remove JFK......this was about 2 years ago.
>

Google time...

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald,
> > clearly
> > > > > support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.
> > > >
> > > > "Active Reserve" - which his actions and planning show he believed
himself
> > > > to be.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He was "Active".
> >
> > I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide that
> > he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
> > knowledge.
> >
>
> WITH OSWALD'S KNOWLEDGE
>

I still don't understand why you think that.


>
> > > Lee is not being used against his will. He has to be fully aware of
his
> > status and
> > > the fact that for the most part he would be on his own.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. He's a volunteer and he knows that, for the most part, he would be
on
> > his own. I add though that he was not told that his discharge status had
> > been changed from "dependency" to "hardship". The effect of Lee
believing
> > he has a "dependency discharge" is that he knows he can be recalled to
> > Active Duty. The only reason for him to be "recalled" would be to punish
> > him for not performing as required. Therefore, Lee is, in effect, under
> > orders the whole time he is in the USSR.
> >
>
> Basically yes, Lee is under orders from day one, with full knowledge of
all
> the risks, public distain, conflicts, being labeled as a "commie" etc etc.
It
> all adds to his "value"........later.....as part of "The September
Conspiracy"
> dealing with Mexico/Cuba/Gus Hall/FPCC etc etc.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied
them
> > to
> > > > > what actually took place.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure it took time.
> > > > Your work is appreciated by me. You know that.
> > >
> > > There is still more that is always needed......and some of the ground
work
> > was to
> > > write a "fictionial" account. So I worked off all the unsupported
CT's
> > and developed
> > > one that is supported, by the law and known actions. I could push
this as
> > a major
> > > CT........but I enjoy the challenge of proving myself wrong. I just
> > thought that somebody
> > > out there would be able to counter my findings "under the
law"......but
> > nobody seems
> > > to be up to the task.
> >
> > Your work agrees with mine even though we took separate ways of getting
> > there.
> >
> >
>
> We still have some differences.......but minor overall.

Yes.
I suspect the audience is still reading and seeing agreement in areas they
don't know how to deal with.


::Clark::


>
> jko
>
> > ::Clark::
>
>
>





From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 14:16:36 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416feb7d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark:
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
> > > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be
"the
> > > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for
who
> > > > Oswald was?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The
point
> > > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the
USMC.
> >
> > Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers and he
> > would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I suppose
> > if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.
>
> Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years",

Then Ayer's gave a false statement in order to get Lee his passport.


>however a statement from the USMC
> would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged for
by
> the USMC would give indication of knowledge,

of where he was headed?

BTW, speaking of where he was headed on his passport, do you consider that
Lee's early preparation could have also included Cuba as a destination? If
so, does this get included in your Cuban trip plans?


>so the normal channels of obtaining
> a passport was used, however, its a simple matter to discover, if one
looks. Almanacs,
> which I collect, all have a section on passports and how to obtain them.
>
>
> >
> > > But there's more to consider. The USMC could have issued Lee a "no
fee"
> > > passport, but no application was made to do so. The reason can only
be to
> > > keep Lee's travel plans "on his own" without assistance. To indicate
that the
> > > USMC had no idea he was planning to go to the USSR.
> >
> > Agreed - And changing his discharge from "Active reserve" to "Inactive
> > Reserve" was just one more step in that process.
>
> There's more conflict with the handling of the records, but no need to go
into
> great detail.
>
> >
> > > At the time, there
> > > was no fear of disclosure, because nobody would find out and if they
> > > did......so what, many individuals get passports while in the service.
It was the
> > > conflict of a witness and the available "no fee" passport that showed
me that
> > > the USMC was "aware of Lee's plans" that matters. Not all of the USMC
had
> > to know......but the
> > > "wittness" did. Since this wittness would be the "final endorsement"
> > > of the discharge, it means he supported the plan and was in the loop.
> > >
> >
> > He's in the loop two different ways - by acting as Oswald's "personal"
> > witness and by altering Lee's discharge from "Active" to "Inactive".
> >
>
> Ayers, was the personnel officer, that "reviewed" and finalized on Service
Records
> at the base for Lees assigned unit. This is where the ONI stuck many
officers.
> IT IS NOT CONFIRMED, but I believe Ayers left this job shortly after and
went to
> a intelligence unit.....I can't even remember where exactly I learned
this, but it
> was either Epstein, Weisberg or Weberman.
> >
> > >
>
> > > Clark: IMHO there was no "discharge" Lee was still on Active Duty and
> > would
> > > be until at least July 25, 1962.........with a possible one year
extension
> > to
> > > July 25, 1963.
> > > I'm sure you will remember the various areas I've mentioned 25 July,
1963,
> > > especially in relationship to the USMC........he's discharged.
> >
> > You did mention it regarding Oswald in NO.
>
> July 25, 1963 is when his USMC connection is ended......the last date of
> appeal on his discharge.
>
> >
> > My own work agrees that Oswald's USMC status is "Active" while in the
> > USSR. I arrived at this conclusion by his own actions. He keeps trying
to
> > fit into the passport laws for "Active Reservists".
>
> There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports" and
> "Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and after.
BUT Lee
> is not following the law here, there are some things you are overlooking.
>

OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was not
in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second, what
are the things I am overlooking?


> >
> > For lurkers, "Active Reservists" in Oswald's day had to be available for
> > "recall" back to Active Duty in times of national emergency. If you were
> > overseas, you were beyond "recall". As my now questionable memory
serves,
> > Active Reservists applying for passports for extended stays outside the
US
> > was something of a no-no. The passport could be granted though for
> > extended overseas stays to an "Active reservist" if the purpose of the
> > trip was educational. For this reason, Oswald applied to attend the
Albert
> > Schweitzer College in order to get his passport approved.
> >
>
> Theres more.....but the general details are enough.
>
> > >
> > > Proving this or disproving it requires that Congressional
investigation. I do
> > > have several considerations of this "Active Duty" in support, but
being
> > > ON ACTIVE DUTY is not critical. There was a "Program" in effect under
> > > the law to send former military NCO's to various areas, so it's really
not key
> > > that he was on AD but it's the most logical consideration.
> >
> > According to Lee's behavior - he thinks so.
>
> He would know his status......
>
> >
> > > The program exsists
> > > so Lee could have been AD, Ready Reserve
> >
> > Lee believes he's one of the above two.
> >
> > >or out all together,
> >
> > Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay "legal"
> > all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
> >
>
> NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations. If
not
> it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the begining......

Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?
Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?



>that works
> as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own
reasons,
> while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't kill
his
> fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy.

Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.

> This is why WC supporters
> should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
> these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
> or being the actual assassin working on his own.

No takers yet.


>
> The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a threat
> or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
> ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
> any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to
accomplish
> this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a
consideration.
> However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the
defection
> period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being
screwed.
>


I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent him -
Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.

But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?


> > > all have to
> > > be examined equally, but they are not presented as being investigated.
They
> > > wanted to show Lee "discharged" as a "Marxist Marine".
> >
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > > The "Service Records" Clark........are the key. The records will have
him as
> > > a hardship discharge.....
> >
> > But he thinks he has a "dependency discharge". The change to "hardship"
> > was made after he left. I don't think anyone wants Lee to know he has a
> > hardship discharge.
> >
>
> Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a
dependent, it
> is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee needs to
> take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of her
bills.

Who is to suspect?

And, whoever this person(s) who suspects is, won't he conclude the same
thing under either discharge? That Lee abandoned his needy mother for the
USSR?


> Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about his
mother
> Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....

If everyone knows this and the USMC doesn't want to appear suspicious, why
not give him a dependency discharge?



>all those that provided "support" by
> affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and if
they read the
> newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem odd,
strange
> and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
> of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the "defection".

No. You can't.
She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
Big mistake.


> She
> provides the primary consideration, that either Lee is being "screwed" or
"used"
> and she is "abused" by the action. IF Lee was being "screwed" the USG
would
> have taken advantage of this effort on her part......to "prosecute"
Lee.....but if
> Lee was to be prosecuted so would she.......the catch 22 that finally shut
her up.
>

I'm not saying the USG wanted to screw Oswald - only that it maintained
plausible denial that Lee was under US control while in the USSR by
recording a "hardship" discharge.

It was Lee's mother that got him screwed by Hoover with the USMC.


> >
> > >.his actual status, imo is still on active duty. The records
> > > were sent through the Ready Reserve section.......imo in the wrong
Naval District.
> > > This prevents access or allows for delay. The whole process is to
keep Lee out
> > > of the system, but still in the system.......just smoke and mirrors.
> > >
> >
> > I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> > discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If Lee
> > ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> > discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11, 1959.
> >
>
> You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a new
> assignment.

I have him thinking about Patrice Lumumba University as if he is "Active".
You have him avoiding the Kollective's political brainwashing sessions as if
he is "Active"
Do these things mean nothing if he is "Active"?


> If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
> thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.
>

Does not a "hardship" discharge support an LN argument that he was "acting
on his own, outside of the system"?

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September,
> > 1959 in
> > > > > the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made....
> > > >
> > > > There are no "mistakes" made in Lee's reserve status.
> > >
> > > The mistakes allowed me to consider all the "alternate
considerations".
> > Things that
> > > don't fit are the "mistakes".
> > >
> >
> > See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have hidden
> > from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> > discharge.
>
> There is no need to hide anything from Lee......

If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?

Because, if the USMC doesn't want Lee telling others he has a "hardship"
discharge, the simplest way to accomplish this would be to tell Lee he has a
"dependency" discharge - As the records show he was shown on 9/11/59. He
will now tell Priscilla Johnson he has a "dependency" discharge - which he
did.

Lee will also believe he is "Active" and apply to Patrice Lumumba
University - just as he applied to ASC. He will also avoid politcal meetings
in the USSR.


>if you feel Lee is acting on his
> own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations mentioned.
You
> can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.

I have Lee believing he is "Active" and, there not acting on his own, but
subject to USG control.

For lurkers, on September 11, 1959, Lee was given an "Active" discharge,
meaning he was subject to recall to active duty. This places restrictions on
his living overseas. It required he go overseas for "educational purposes"
for him to legally obtain a passport. For this reason he applied to attend
Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College which accepted him. This got Lee to
Europe and then to Russia. But, once in Russia, without attending school, he
was guilty of violating the law against "Active" Reservists living overseas
(where they are beyond recall during times of national emergency). To
correct that, in applying for Soviet citizenship, Lee identified to
Priscilla Johnson that the Russians were to help him attend a "Soviet
education institute". This would make Lee's stay in the USSR legal (For
CTer's, Lee needed to make this request only if he was planning on coming
back.). He also told Priscilla he was an "Active" Reservist. Once he got
inside the USSR he applied to Patrice Lumumba University and was "very
disappointed" when he was turned down. Why? Because he was now in violation
of laws applicable to "Active" Reservists requiring he be living in the USSR
for educational purposes (Which he could legally do) and not for employment
purposes.
Did he know this?
He sure did. He even wrote it down. His answers to the following written
questions can be found in Warren Commission Exhibit 100 Volume 16 Pg
436-439:

Question 3: "Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the USSR?"

Answer: I did in that.

Lee admitted above that he broke the law, as an "Active" Reservist, by
residing in the USSR and taking work there.

He even added to his knowledge of the law:

Question 4. "Isn't all work in the USSR considered State work?"

Answer: Yes of course and in that respect I also broke US Law in accepting
work under a foreign state.

Lee is referring to Title 37, section 908, which makes it illegal for
members of a reserve component of the armed forces to take foreign civil
employment. Since the USSR was a communist state, all employment there could
be considered "civil".

So we see two things. First, we see that Lee left a "door open" for himself
to return to the US with a plan to legally stay in the USSR by attending
school there. Second, we see he is familar with the laws pertaining to
"Active" Reservists and that he had violated them.

The problem though is that Lee was not "Active". The day after he left the
USMC, on Sept 12, 1959, Lt. Ayers changed his discharge to "Inactive". He
was no longer subject to recall to active duty. The above passport laws no
longer applied to Oswald.

IMO, based upon Lee's actions concerning the "Active Reserve" laws, Lee was
unaware that, the day after he exited the USMC, his discharge status had
been changed by Ayers to "Inactive".

Lee was worried about nothing.

Why then did Lt. Ayers change his discharge status from "Active" to
"Inactive" without telling Lee?

Because if Lee ever revealed to the Russians that he was working for the
USMC under threat of recall to Active Duty and Summary Court Martial if he
didn't obey USMC orders, the USMC could plausibly deny the charge by
producing Lee's discharge records showing he was "Inactive" and, thus, could
not be recalled to Active Duty for Summary Court Martial and that,
therefore, Lee was lying.

Things are actually more complex than this. There are still ways for Lee to
be prosecuted. But Lee only needs to know one to be made to obey "orders"
and the evidence above shows that he did know one - if not two (Title 37,
section 908).

Finally, Lee knew he had violated US law and was subject to prosecution. Yet
he returned anyway and yet was not prosecuted. IMO, he returned, knowing he
broke the law for the same reason he was not prosecuted. He had obeyed
orders.

>
> >
> > He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding his
> > file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or "Ready
> > Reserve".
> >
> > Lee will never be the wiser.
> >
>
> Only if he is being "screwed". They could legally show him AWOL, or as a
deserter
> obtainiing a fraudulant seperation.

I mentioned above that there are other ways to prosecute Oswald. But is our
8th grade drop out an attorney?
On his list of questions he wrote and answered for himself of his legal
crimes, he never mentioned being guilty of the above. One could argue that
he doesn't mention them because he doesn't know they were illegal.

However, IMO, Lee is not concerned with how the USMC "could legally show him
AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a fraudulant seperation" because it's not
the USMC that he's worried about be being prosecuted by.

It's the AG's Office.

The AG's Office can prosecute him for violating Federal passport laws
regarding "Active" Reservists. However, the AG's Office cannot prosecute him
even if it "could legally show him AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a
fraudulant seperation." Heck! They can't even nail him for offering the
Soviets radar secrets. Those are not Federal offenses. Those are military
offenses. Different courts.

Lee's exiting of the USMC reveals aid by the USMC (via Lt. Ayers) and USMC
knowledge that Lee has applied for a passport to leave the country, using as
a passport witness the very people he has told he's not going to leave the
country, but care for his mother instead. At the time that Lt. Ayers
appeared as Lee's passport witness, Ayers knew Lee's discharge reasons were
fraudulent. So the USMC is in on it - And Ayers had to lie and say he knew
Lee for two years in order to be in on it. So he's a participant to two
frauds.
No. Lee is not worried about the USMC prosecuting him. Such a prosecution
would reveal Lt. Ayer's knowledge and participation.
As far as Lee is concerned, his prosecution problems aren't with the USMC
when he returns (And we know he's planning to return.). It's with the AG's
Office. He knows he's violated Federal passport laws (Although he tried not
to). Its why he demanded a guarantee of no prosecution to return.

But, in his original plan, this wouldn't happen. He attends school in the
USSR. He doesn't get a job. Now, when he returns, there's no prosecution by
either the AG's Office or the USMC. He's within the Federal law with the AG
and it was the USMC that helped him get to the USSR in the first place, so
they're not going to prosecute him for going (And they didn't).




> Using his mother, which brings her into the law
> as "aiding" this fraudulant seperation and subject to prosecution. If
Lee was
> "Active" he was wiser.
>

As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not fraudulent. Lt.
Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.

>
> > > >
> > > > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are
being
> > > > handled in accordance with that belief.
> > >
> > > No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.
> >
> > His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent with
> > "Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.
>
> Lee needs to continue the "cover" of educationial desires

For the AG's Office - Yes.
For anyone else? No.

>.....but he is no student.

In enrollment only.
He's not there to learn about "philosophy".

> It fits......but Lee does not act like any student, wishing to study the
"Collective"
> or even Marxism.
>

Lee acts like someone taking notes on what he sees and hears.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm

> >
> > > He has to
> > > be for the USG to actually act in his behalf as they did. If he was
not, none of
> > > the things done to get him and his family back would have been done.
He
> > > would have been prosecuted.
> >
> > Of course - but we're jumping ahead in our conclusons. We're still in
> > September-December, 1959.
> >
>
> I started this to show the conflicts of the discharge.....the return is
just as
> complex.
>

Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in with the
"discharge". I just did it above.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lee continues to act as if he is the Ready Reserve while in the
USSR,
> > > > seeking admittance to Patrice Lumumba University and avoiding the
worker's
> > > > meetings, and preparing a list of answers to possible questions on
his
> > > > return applicable to his imagined "Active Reserve" status.
> > >
> > > Lee's cover is that he is "seperated" (by hardship) and he maintains
that role.
> > > He needs that cover to be "accepted".
> > >
>
> The whole thing stinks.......the "Collective" takes care of those that
can't.....but
> Lee does the opposite, and those that learn of how he handled his mother
would
> NOT BE accepting Lee......which is why Lee has a small circle of
associates.
> Easier to control, what they learn.
>
> >
> > Yes and No. His cover is that he is separated by "dependency" - not
> > hardship. You can see it for yourself right here:
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0153b.htm
> >
> > This is Lee telling Pricilla Johnson he has a "dependency discharge".
This
> > is exactly the conditions he left the USMC on. The change by Ayers took
> > place the next day.
> >
> > Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no matter
> > how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in the
> > USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the latter
> > can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").
> >
> > Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it - requires
> > Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice Lumumba
> > University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
> > sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?
>
> No, Lee has no interest in learning and his role does not require him to
be
> but it is "better" if he does nothing.....which he did. The Soviets,
followed
> through because of the possibility of "exposure" to other students of Lee
> actual "beliefs" and political background. The failure to allow Lee to go
> to school illustrates additional restricted co-operation by the Soviets.
>

Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his request to
attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
Any ideas on why they did this?

> >
> > Lee is obeying the rules. Our boy is COMING BACK. Here you can see where
> > Lee was negotiating with the Russians as early as November 12, 1959 to
> > continue his education "at a Soviet Institute."
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
> >
> > Lee's plans to attend school at a Soviet institute is a legal
requirement
> > he must meet. If not, he could be considered to be in violation of USC
909
> > of Title 37 which reads:
> >
> > Title 37
> >
> > § 908. Employment of reserves and retired members by foreign governments
> >
> > (a) Congressional consent. Subject to subsection (b), Congress consents
> > to the following persons accepting civil employment (and compensation
for
> > that employment) for which the consent of Congress is required by the
last
> > paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution, related to
> > acceptance of emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government:
> > (1) Retired members of the uniformed services.
> > (2) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
> > (3) Members of the Commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health
> > Service.
> >
> > (b) Approval required. A person described in subsection (a) may accept
> > employment or compensation described in that subsection only if the
> > Secretary concerned and the Secretary of State approve the employment.
> >
> > If Lee ended up in "civil employment" in the USSR without the Secretary
of
> > State's permission, he will be in violation of the law. BTW, item #2
above
> > should read "Active Reserve component".
> >
>
> The above is a key consideration.........it also covers individuals in the
NSTC,
> National Security Training Corp of which I believe Lee is actual connected
to.

Yes. Your belief on that is quite facinating and not impossible. Is there
any additional info you would like to share on that?

> See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
> treason and aiding the enemy.
>

Different thread?

> >
> >
> > Lee's application for Soviet citizenship is a sham. He's planning to
come
> > back before he even gets there. You and I can, and will, demonstrate
this
> > to be a sham over and over and over again.
>
> There is more to support the "sham" then Lee acting on his own.
>

Yes. We're just touching the tip of the iceberg.
We could bore everyone here to death with the evidence support the sham to
the point that they would prefer to read Dave Reitzes on Judyth.

> >
> > Lee failed to mention in his interview
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
> >
> > that the US Embassy in Moscow, advised him on November 6 to come back
> > during normal business hours to sign the necessary forms to renounce his
> > citizenship (CE 919).
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0066a.htm
> >
> > Instead, Lee ignored this letter in his interview and told her about his
> > original visit, stating, as CE 910 confirms, that the US Embassy "would
> > not allow me to act without confirmation of my Soviet citizenship. I
> > relinguished my passport and they said they would not act unless my
Soviet
> > citizenship was confirmed."
> >
> > Almost a week had gone by since being invited back to sign the forms.
Yet
> > Lee didn't go back and failed to acknowledge the invitation. Here's the
> > explanation he gave to Priscilla Johnson for not going back:
> >
> > He was "bitter towards Richard Snyder, who, he charges, stalled him when
> > he asked to take the oath on Oct 31, only time Lee's been at the
Embassy.
> > As a result, Lee won't go back there."
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0154b.htm
> >
> > Lee has retained his US citizenship, believes he has an "Active" status
with
> > the USMC, and abides by the regulations for such "Active" status.
> >
> > Lee is planning to come home. Even Priscilla Johnson suspected this,
> > advising Richard Snyder that Lee had "left the door open" to return
(page
> > 289, Vol XX).
> >
> > She could only say this if she knew Lee had not renounced his Ameican
> > citizenship. Here, on Dec 5, 1963, she admits knowing just that:
> >
> >
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0157b.htm
> >
> >
>
> Lee never indended to re-nounce his citizenship or "defect" on his own.
>

That is correct.
Lee was a expert on how not to renounce one's citizenship.

>
> > >
> > > His cover is established and hidden.
> >
> > Even from himself. If Lee ever tried to testify otherwise, the USMC
could
> > state that Lee was lying, that he had never received a dependent's
> > discharge and that he was Inactive - not Active - when he went to the
> > USSR.
> >
> > Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.
>
> Lee knows he is expendable.....it's part of the risk accepted, before
enlistment.
>

Okay. I even made a case for Lee being "expendable" to our own AG's Office.
So, obviously, you're right.


>
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....
> >
> > Lee did not miss this.
>
> He can't which is why he is fully aware of his "status".
>

"Active"

> >
> > >however you did not miss
> > > the "PD".
> >
> > Lee did.
> >
>
> NO.....PD is a key factor....it works several ways.
>

Now you know I have ask now how "it works several ways"?


> >
> > >
> > > * UNITED STATES CODE
> > > o TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
> > > + PART III - EMPLOYEES
> > > + Subpart B - Employment and Retention
> > > + CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND
> > PLACEMENT
> > > + SUBCHAPTER III - DETAILS
> > >
> > > § 3341. Details; within Executive or military departments
> > >
> > > * (a) The head of an Executive department or military department
may
> > > detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department,
> > > except employees who are required by law to be exclusively
engaged on
> > > some specific work.
> > > * (b) Details under subsection (a) of this section may be made only
by
> > > written order of the head of the department, and may be for not
more
> > > than 120 days. These details may be renewed by written order of
the
> > > head of the department, in each particular case, for periods not
> > > exceeding 120 days.
> > >
> >
> > According to this, Lee's "detail" would expire in January, 1960. I
expect
> > this is why you believe Lee's mission was to end in December, 1960 but
> > that something changed?
> >
>
> JFK WAS ELECTED, Lee operation could be "canceled" at this time. JFK
> would take office in January, Nixon was out the door. All intelligence
operations
> now have "new directions" if JFK wanted to change things. The
Presidentail
> Detail, has a new President.


Point conceded.

>
>
> > IMO, nothing changed. Lee is under "orders" until January, 1960 - or
until
> > he gets his "resident visa". Once inside the USSR he is beyond "orders".
> > But, up until January 1960, he has his orders to obey. Lee must do as
he's
> > told through January. If he doesn't obey orders and abscounds with $
2500
> > of USG money, bad things will be waiting for him back in the US.
> > "Presidential detail" covers this period.
>
> Your overlooking several key facts......Look at the period and
correspondence
> by Lee during Jan/Feb......with the consideration that the operationial
plug would
> be pulled.

I'll do this.
Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he left
Moscow and "disappeared"?

>
> >
> > Once inside the USSR, his "presidential detail" commitment expires. But
we
> > no longer need it then. The USMC just needs to make him obey orders
until
> > he's inside - or until January, 1960. This corresponds to when Lee
> > received his temporary Russian visa.
> >
> > Thus, there is no required connection between the length of Oswald's
> > "detail" and the length of his mission.
> >
>
> The detail was allowed to continue, but with some changes. The agreement
between
> Ike and Niki, was different then the one between JFK and Niki. I made a
post several
> years ago about the 185 to 8 motive. This would also allow Lee to have
motive to
> remove JFK......this was about 2 years ago.
>

Google time...

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald,
> > clearly
> > > > > support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.
> > > >
> > > > "Active Reserve" - which his actions and planning show he believed
himself
> > > > to be.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He was "Active".
> >
> > I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide that
> > he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
> > knowledge.
> >
>
> WITH OSWALD'S KNOWLEDGE
>

I still don't understand why you think that.


>
> > > Lee is not being used against his will. He has to be fully aware of
his
> > status and
> > > the fact that for the most part he would be on his own.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. He's a volunteer and he knows that, for the most part, he would be
on
> > his own. I add though that he was not told that his discharge status had
> > been changed from "dependency" to "hardship". The effect of Lee
believing
> > he has a "dependency discharge" is that he knows he can be recalled to
> > Active Duty. The only reason for him to be "recalled" would be to punish
> > him for not performing as required. Therefore, Lee is, in effect, under
> > orders the whole time he is in the USSR.
> >
>
> Basically yes, Lee is under orders from day one, with full knowledge of
all
> the risks, public distain, conflicts, being labeled as a "commie" etc etc.
It
> all adds to his "value"........later.....as part of "The September
Conspiracy"
> dealing with Mexico/Cuba/Gus Hall/FPCC etc etc.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied
them
> > to
> > > > > what actually took place.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure it took time.
> > > > Your work is appreciated by me. You know that.
> > >
> > > There is still more that is always needed......and some of the ground
work
> > was to
> > > write a "fictionial" account. So I worked off all the unsupported
CT's
> > and developed
> > > one that is supported, by the law and known actions. I could push
this as
> > a major
> > > CT........but I enjoy the challenge of proving myself wrong. I just
> > thought that somebody
> > > out there would be able to counter my findings "under the
law"......but
> > nobody seems
> > > to be up to the task.
> >
> > Your work agrees with mine even though we took separate ways of getting
> > there.
> >
> >
>
> We still have some differences.......but minor overall.

Yes.
I suspect the audience is still reading and seeing agreement in areas they
don't know how to deal with.


::Clark::

[.]







next

looking for books?

index